Skip to main content

Full text of "Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You to Know"

See other formats


The science that Al Gore doesn't 
want you to know 


The science that Al Gore doesn’t want 
you to know 

Gregory Wrightstone 



Silver Crown Productions, LLC 

Cover design by Darren J. Miller 

© 2017 Gregory Wrightstone 

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, 
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any 
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or 
otherwise, except as permitted under Sections 107 or 108 of the 
1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written 
permission of the Publisher. 

Printed in the United States of America 

ISBN: 9781545614334 
LCCN: 2017952745 


In memory of our son, 

Zachary Daniel Wrightstone, 

September 14, 1988 - February 2, 2017 
Taken too soon 

And dedicated to our granddaughter 

Chloe Choi 

born April 27, 2017 

In the hope that she will grow up in a rational world 

One life ends and another begins 


Many thanks to the colleagues who made this book possible. Though 
they had diverse talents, they shared my goal of finding the truth and 
presenting the facts, science and data in a clear and lucid manner. 

The generous contribution of time and linguistic talent from Gordon 
Tomb was crucial to the finished product. His wordsmithing of my 
sometimes-inelegant phrasing certainly made this a much more readable 
and sensible work. Not long into the process he told me “Greg, I had 
suspected for years that we were being lied to about this, but I had no idea 
just how pervasive it really was.” At that point, he was hooked. 

It was a pleasure and a joy to bring Christopher Monckton of 
Brenchley onto the editing team. His contributions were impactful and 
greatly improved the book via additions of his technical knowledge and his 
insight into the political machinations promoting the “party line.” 

Robert Burger provided great help in formatting and excellent 
improvements in the figures. Others providing an assist with editing and 
graphics were Christopher Humphrey, Justin Skaggs, Sarah Hart and 
Alison Kissel. 

It is not entirely certain that this book would have been completed 
without the support and encouragement of my brother, Bob Wrightstone. 
He always provided an honest assessment to keep me on track with my 
goal of reaching the common man. In writing a book dealing with 
scientific matters, it is all too easy to go “deep in the weeds” on the 
technical aspects and Bob was not afraid to remind me of that fact when I 
strayed from my goal. 

Special thanks for design help and moral support to dear friends Jeff 
and Gwen Steigerwalt. Their help and backing of the project were crucial 
to its success. 

The patience and support of my wife Julia were remarkable and for that 
I am grateful. 

Special thanks to Lucy the Cat who kept me company and never once 
complained... Well, maybe once. 


Great is truth and mighty above all things—even in 
climate science 

By The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley 

The Roman poet Virgil wrote of the scientist: “Felix qui potuit rerum 
cognoscere causas: “Happy the one who finds the why of things.” Science 
was originally known in the West as philosophia naturalis —the love of the 
nature of wisdom that is love of the wisdom of nature. The noble 
philosophical mission of “the seeker after truth”, as the Iraqi 
mathematician and empiricist al-Haytham beautifully described the 
scientist, was to discern what is so in nature and why it is so, and to answer 
the question of the Greek philosopher Anaximander: how to distinguish 
what is from what is not ? 

The objective of the endeavors of the man of science, then, is precisely 
that of the man of religion: to discern the truth. Jesus Christ—the 
unsuccessful and yet ultimately triumphant defendant in history’s most 
celebrated show trial—declared His mission thus: “To this end was I born, 
and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the 
truth.” There, in a sentence, is a noble mission for every true natural 
philosopher to adopt as his own. Too many climate scientists have 
abandoned that mission, and they have done so at great cost to the 
reputation of science itself. 

Pontius Pilate’s reply to the defendant was the great question that 
underlies all genuine scientific questions: “What is the truth?” There, 
before him, was the One who could have given the answer, but, 
notoriously, Pilate did not stay for it. 

Similarly do today’s governing elite respond when they are confronted 
with the Inconvenient Facts piled upon Inconvenient Facts in this book, 
establishing that global warming is not occurring at anything like the 
predicted rate, that the succession of exotic natural disasters luridly 
foretold by failed climate models are not happening, and that the cost of 

solving non-existent man-made global warming is orders of magnitude 
greater than the far lesser cost of doing nothing today and adapting to 
warmer weather—if ever it comes. 

They close their ears to the truth and walk away. Hear no truth, see no 
truth, speak no truth. 

The lavishly-funded clique of totalitarian pseudo-scientists who crafted 
the scare of scares and then peddled the scam of scams—Professor Momer 
justly calls climate alarmism “the greatest lie ever told”—bear witness not 
unto the truth but unto the Party Line, which they have branded as “the 
overwhelming scientific consensus”; a consensus which, as Mr. 
Wrightstone explains with admirable lucidity and concision in these pages, 
does not exist and would have no scientific relevance even if it did. 

Science, as al-Haytham could have told these creatures, is not done by 
mere head count: “The seeker after truth does not put his faith in any 
consensus, however venerable or widespread. Instead he questions what he 
has learned of it, applying to it his hard-won scientific knowledge, and he 
inspects and inquires and investigates and checks and checks and checks 
again. The road to the truth is long and hard, but that is the road we must 

Gregory Wrightstone is a man of true science, firmly in the tradition of 
al-Haytham. His mission in this book is not to prop up some failed Party 
Line willy-nilly, nor—on the other hand—unthinkingly to oppose that 
Party Line merely on the basis that it is as scientifically disagreeable as it 
is histrionically hysterical. His mission is to distinguish what is from what 
is not in the climate debate. He has splendidly succeeded. 

It has been a pleasure to play a small part in editing Inconvenient 
Facts. The reader will find the book easy to read, logically structured, 
clearly expressed, well illustrated, compellingly supported by evidence 
and, above all, authoritative. This is not an academic work. For one thing, 
it is written in plain English. Yet it is as comprehensively referenced as 
any scientific book, and its conclusions are more reliable than those of the 
small number of “scientific” papers about climate change that the 
mainstream news media find expedient to mention. 

One of the many remarkable things about this book is how startlingly 
numerous, relevant and compelling are the Inconvenient Facts that it 
presents, and yet how unbecomingly few of these facts have ever appeared 

in any mainstream news medium. 

The voters cannot be fairly or fully informed where the news media, 
long captured by hate-filled, totalitarian enemies of the liberty and 
prosperity of the West and of the democracy that is the guarantor of both, 
will not fairly or fully report both sides of issues such the climate question. 
Their shameful failure is Mr. Wrightstone’s shining opportunity. His book 
is necessary, precisely because the usual news outlets behave as though 
they were run by the KGB Disinformation Directorate or by Herr 
Goebbels’ Reichs-propagandaamt. Whenever the Party Line runs counter 
to the truth, they do not report the truth at all—except occasionally to 
mischaracterize it sneeringly as “denialism”. Mr. Wrightstone, by contrast, 
reports the truth whichever way it points, and leaves the reader to make up 
his own mind. 

In the long debate about the influence of Man on climate, the profiteers 
of doom have sullenly adhered to the Party Line not because it is true (for 
this book shows beyond reasonable doubt that it is not true) but because, 
false though the Party Line be, they find it socially convenient, politically 
expedient and, above all, financially profitable. 

One of the two principles of natural justice recognized in the law of the 
English-speaking countries is Audiatur et altera pars — “Let both sides be 
fairly heard”. Given that on this, as on many issues, the news media no 
longer allow the skeptical side of the case to be heard, well researched, 
clearly written, beautifully presented and, above all, fact-packed books 
such as Inconvenient Facts are absolutely essential to the very survival of 
democracy, to the restoration of true science, and to the ultimate triumph 
of objective truth. 

Monckton of Brenchley 




List of Figures 

Introduction: Climate Science and the Non-Expert Problem 

I. Global Warming — The Basics 

1. Greenhouse Gases — Our Security Blanket 
Summary — Greenhouse Gases 

2. Carbon Dioxide — The Foundation of Life, the Food of Plants 
C0 2 : The Basics 

Earth’s Carbon Dioxide History 

Is 400 PPM Really a C0 2 Tipping Point? 

The Social Benefits of Increasing Carbon 
Summary — C0 2 and Humankind 

3. Temperature — A Question of Degree 

The Hockey-Stick Graph and ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming 

Why the ‘Hockey-Stick’ Graph Matters 

Modern Instrumental Data 

Some Important Charts 

Stepping Millions of Years Back in Time 

Climate Models: Accurate, Inaccurate or Useless? 

Winter’s Coming — Is Another Ice Age on its Way? 

Climate and Culture: Very Good and Very Bad 

II. Apocalypse? No! — Climate Apocalypse Myths 
“97% Consensus” — What Consensus? 

Water, Water Everywhere — How Droughts are Declining 

Forest Fires — Fanning the Flames of Needless Panic 

Famine: The Best Solution is More C0 2 and Increasing Temperature 

Heat and Life, Cold and Death 

In a Whirl About Tornadoes 

Hurricanes — Politicizing Tragedy 

Polar Bears are Doing Just Fine, Thank You 

Ocean Acidity — Climate pHraud 

Sea-Level Rise — King Canute Couldn’t Stop It — Nor Can We 

Summary — The Benefits of Principled Inaction 

List of Inconvenient Facts 


List of Figures 

Figure 1-1: The greenhouse effect 

Figure 1-2: The contribution of greenhouse gases to global warming 
Figure 1-3: Less global warming for each additional 50 parts-per-million-by- 
volume of C0 2 concentration 

Figure 1-4: Gases in the atmosphere, excluding water vapor 
Figure 1-5: Sources of man-made C0 2 emissions 

Figure 1-6: Pounds of C0 2 emitted, per million British Thermal Units (BTU, i.e., 
energy output) 

Figure 1-7: C0 2 emissions by country, 2014 

Figure 1-8: Mauna Loa C0 2 concentration, 1958 - 2017 

Figure 1-9: Global man-made C0 2 emissions 

Figure 1-10: 100,000 years of C0 2 data from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica 
Figure 1-11: 400,000 years of C0 2 data from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica 
Figure 1-12: The dangerous 140-million-year decline in C0 2 
Figure 1-13: Carbon Dioxide—600 Million Years of Data 
Figure 1-14: Average C0 2 concentrations in 11 geological periods 
Figure 1-15: Crop yield growth and cash benefit with 300 ppm more C0 2 
Figure 1-16: Hubert Lamb’s temperature graph of the past 1,100 years 
Figure 1-17: The Mann-made hockey stick 

Figure 1-18: Satellite measured global warming since 1979 : <0.5 °C (0.9 °F) 
Figure 1-19: Thermometer data show a temperature increase of 0.85°C (1.5°F) 

Figure 1-20: Temperature vs. C0 2 (1850-2013) 

Figure 1-21: Stable or falling temperatures prevailed in most of the period 1945 

Figure 1-22: An inconvenient pause: 18 years of no warming yet C0 2 increased 
Figure 1-23: For 33 postwar years, C0 2 rose quickly but temperature fell. 

Figure 1-24: Greater than 300 years of warming in central England from 1695 - 

Figure 1-25: 200 years of glacial retreat 

Figure 1-26: Greater than 200 years of sea-level rise 

Figure 1-27: 2,000 years of temperature data 

Figure 1-28: The ups and downs of temperature over the past 800,000 years 
Figure 1-29: The ups and downs of temperature over the past 400,000 years 
Figure 1-30: 10,000 years of blessed warmth 

Figure 1-31: Five earlier warming periods had higher rates of warming than 

Figure 1-32: 3.5 million years of declining temperature 

Figure 1-33: For 65 million years, the weather was warmer than today. 

Figure 1-34: Four billion years of temperature data 
Figure 1-35: Icehouse to hothouse fluctuations 

Figure 1-36: Global warming predicted by models compared with real-world 

Figure 1-37: 3,500 years of falling temperature 

Figure 1-38: Icy problems ahead for more than 120 million in North America 

Figure 1-39: 4,000 years of temperature-driven cultural advances and retreats 
Figure 11-1: The global warming petition that 31,000 scientists signed 
Figure 11-2: United States drought monitor 

Figure 11-3: Thanks to our changing climate, much of the world is greening. 
Figure 11-4: Palmer drought-severity index of mean drought conditions, 1895 - 

Figure 11-5: Percentage of United States very wet vs. very dry, 1895 - 2017 
Figure 11-6: Percentage of the globe in drought, June 1983 to June 2012 
Figure 11-7: Global frequency of severe, persistent droughts, vs. temperature 
change and C0 2 emissions 

Figure 11-8: Long-term changes in aridity in western North America 

Figure 11-9: More C0 2 , but fewer forest fires 

Figure 11-10:Global burned area by decade 

Figure 11-11: How green is my planet? C0 2 is making it greener. 

Figure ll-12:Trend in length of growing season (1981 -2006) 

Figure 11-13:World grain production, C0 2 concentration and temperature, 1961 

Figure ll-14:Bushels of grain per acre harvested worldwide, 1936/37 -2016/17 

Figure 11-15:C0 2 emissions go up, up goes U.S. corn production 

Figure 11-16:U.S. corn feeds cars, not people, 1980/81 - 2016/17 

Figure ll-17:Nature, not C0 2 emissions, drives heatwaves 

Figure 11-18:Up goes C0 2 concentration, down go heat waves 

Figure 11-19: In Alabama peak daily temperature fell from 1883-2014 

Figure 11-20:Cold weather, not hot weather, is the real killer 

Figure 11-21 :Warmer weather, yet fewer deaths from warmer weather 

Figure 11-22:U.S. annual extreme-weather deaths and death rates tumble 

Figure 11-23:Good news—cold is killing fewer Britons 

Figure ll-24:The more the global warming, the fewer the predicted deaths from 

Figure ll-25:As temperature dropped, U.K. deaths increased—and vice versa. 
Figure ll-26:Tornadoes world distribution 

Figure 11-27:Severe tornadoes (F 3+) are less frequent than 50 years ago. 

Figure 11-28:2016—Lowest number of tornadoes according to NOAA 
Figure 11-29:11.S. tornado deaths per million population 
Figure ll-30:The Fujita tornado scale 

Figure 11-31:Cherry-picked trends in North Atlantic hurricane power 
Figure ll-32:The true long-term trend in North Atlantic hurricanes PDI 
Figure 11-33: Frequency of global hurricanes and major hurricanes 
Figure 11-34:Global tropical storm and hurricane frequency is falling 
Figure 11-35: Hurricane frequency fell for more than 250 years 
Figure ll-36:There are almost four times as many polar bears as in 1960. 

Figure ll-37:Twelve of 13 regional polar bear populations are thriving. 

Figure 11-38: Polar bears thriving in high ice-loss areas 

Figure 11-39: Male polar bear weight comparison of the two populations 

Figure 11-40:Academia on acid: papers about the “acid” ocean, 2001-2015 

Figure 11-41 :pH values of common substances 

Figure ll-42:Too pHew data points for linkage 

Figure 11-43:7,000 years of ocean pH in the South China Sea, and C0 2 
Figure 11-44: Reconstructed pH history of SW Pacific reef, 1708 - 1988 
Figure 11-45: Limestone was deposited when the C0 2 concentration was 
extremely high. 

Figure 11-46:Ordovician Black River carbonates laid down when C0 2 was 12 
times today’s concentration 
Figure 11-47:20,000-year sea level reconstruction 
Figure 11-48: More than 200 years of sea-level rise 
Figure ll-49:Sea-level rise predictions are failing 

Figure 11-50:Global average sea level from nine records shows decreasing rate 
of sea-level rise. 

Figure 11-51 :Sea-level rise at Australian tide gauges is slowing 

Figure 11-52: A sea-level test 

Figure Il-53:The Antarctic 

Figure 11-54: Increasing Antarctic sea-ice area 


Climate Science and the Non-Expert Problem 

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed 
—and hence clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with an 
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. 

— H.L. Mencken 

You have been exposed to a constant drumbeat from governments, 
institutions and the media, warning of a looming environmental apocalypse 
due to human-caused climate change. You have been warned that unless 
society makes radical changes to our lives, primarily in energy 
consumption, we will have an increasing number of floods, droughts, 
hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and inundations of coastlines. 

You are told that any climate change is entirely the result of people 
introducing large amounts of “greenhouse gases” (mostly carbon dioxide) 
into the atmosphere, and that natural forces have little or no effect on these 
changes. You have also been told that these assertions are a product of 
“settled science,” agreed upon by 97% of all scientists. 

Yet you are not quite buying into this climate doomsday scenario, 
perhaps because you have seen many situations where “experts” were 
proven to be completely incorrect, or perhaps because skeptics of the 
“settled science” make amazingly good sense. You may also realize that 
models used to predict future temperatures are incredibly complicated, and 
that those models require human judgement that allows for variables. 
Finally, you may have noticed that the term global warming morphed into 
climate change in the mid-2000s, after the predicted warming stopped, and 
that climate change is now the scapegoat for every weather event 
considered unusual. 

I had many of the same questions concerning the science behind 
climate-change alarmism. These led me to a deep dive into the methods of 
the scientists and the validity of what was reported as scientific fact. As a 
geoscientist who has dealt with various aspects of the Earth’s processes for 


more than 35 years, I know that the brief hundred or so years of recorded 
temperatures—and the even shorter time frame since the first satellite was 
launched—is just a blink of a geologic eye. It is too brief a period to 
evaluate the data adequately. Much of climate science deals with the few 
decades of recorded data available, and does not attempt to place this data 
in the longer geologic perspective needed to analyze it adequately. 

Scientists who claim that global catastrophe is lurking right around the 
comer because of the increased production of greenhouse gases sound like 
they have the facts on their side, but so do the skeptics who dispute them. 
They both can’t be right. Which is it? So, you are questioning the premise 
of catastrophic climate change, but you are not a scientist, and likely don’t 
believe that you have the necessary skills to evaluate adequately the 
competing claims. 

This is what Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) calls the non-expert 
problem. People suspect something is amiss with the one-sided deluge of 
information about climate catastrophe, but aren’t fully equipped to assess it 
and judge for themselves. This is the purpose of this book: to provide non¬ 
scientists with well-documented, easily understood data on the basics of 
the science, while spotlighting the many glaring flaws in the climate- 
catastrophe arguments. It is my goal that, armed with the information in 
this book, you can respond confidently to those advancing misinformation 
concerning our changing climate. 

You will find in these pages many highly significant and, for the 
climate-catastrophe crowd, inconvenient facts. These are facts that the 
purveyors of impending doom have not publicized for good reason. They 
reveal that the climate disasters they have prophesied are nothing more 
than the imaginary hobgoblins about which H. L. Mencken warned us. The 
inconvenient facts presented here show that the threat to humankind is not 
climate change or global warming, but a group of men (and women) intent 
on imposing an agenda based on severely flawed science. 

The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an 

ugly fact. 

— Thomas Huxley 


I. Global Warming — The Basics 

1. Greenhouse Gases — Our Security Blanket 

The greenhouse effect, the important mechanism by which the Earth 
remains, for the most part, comfortably warm, cozy and livable, is also the 
pretext for the advancement of doomsday predictions about carbon 
dioxide-driven global warming. Since this theory is central to climate 
change debate, and to every chapter in this book, it would be helpful for 
you to have a basic understanding of the process. As you probably first 
learned about greenhouse warming in high school science class, the details 
are most likely lost in the same fog of time that prevents you from 
remembering how to solve advanced polynomial equations, and what the 
capital of New Hampshire happens to be. (That’s Concord.) 

While about 30% of the Sun’s radiation is reflected by clouds, most of 
it passes through the Earth’s atmosphere and strikes the surface. There it is 
absorbed and its energy emitted in the near-infrared spectrum. Some of 
that re-emitted energy is absorbed by greenhouse-gas molecules. As they 
absorb the radiation, they in turn emit energy in the form of heat. This is 
the greenhouse effect (Fig. 1-1). 

Greenhouse gases and the warming they cause keep the Earth at a 
comfortable average temperature* of about 15° Celsius (59° Fahrenheit). 
Without them, the Earth would be an unlivable -18°C (-0.4°F). Good 
examples of the extremes of greenhouse warming are two nearby planets, 
as they bookend the spectrum of greenhouse gas concentration. Venus has 
a pea-soup atmosphere, with C0 2 comprising 96% (compared with 0.04% 
for Earth), and an average temperature of almost 462°C (863°F). 
Meanwhile, Mars has virtually no atmosphere, and a temperature of -55°C 
(-67°F). This is the “Goldilocks effect” (Table 1-1): Venus is too hot; Mars 
is too cold; Earth is just right. 


Figure 1-1: The greenhouse effect 

Solar radiation 
powers the climate 

Some solar 
radiation is 
reflected by the 
Earth and the 


The Greenhouse Effect 

Some of the infrared radiation 
passes through the 

( atmosphere but most is 
absorbed and re-emitted in all 
directions by greenhouse gas 
molecules and clouds. The 
effect of this is to warm the 
Earth’s surface and the lower 


(Modified from IPCC 2007) 

Table 1-1: The “Goldilocks effect” 




Surface temperature 
(no greenhouse 

Relative size of 





96% CO 2 

-40°C (-40° F) 





0.04% COz: 
ideal for life 

-18°C (0 4*F) 


(59° F) 


95% CO 2 

-56°C <-69°F) 




In the discussion about greenhouse gases, alarmist organizations and 


their allies in the media focus solely on man-made gases as the main 
agents of greenhouse warming. They do not mention the most significant 
greenhouse gas of all—water vapor. 

For example, the National Geographic climate-change website reports 
that greenhouse gases “include carbon dioxide (C0 2 ), methane, nitrous 
oxide (N 2 0), fluorinated gases, and ozone.” EPA’s greenhouse-gas pie 
chart is something like the lefthand chart in Fig. 1-2. It shows no 
contribution from water vapor. Based solely on charts like this and 
descriptions like that given by National Geographic, one might well 
conclude that C0 2 is the main driver of greenhouse warming. The main 
driver of greenhouse warming—water vapor—is often completely ignored. 

Figure 1-2: The contribution of greenhouse gases to global warming 

Including Water Vapor 


(GHG Data source: CDIAC 2016, water vapor effect: Robinson 2012) 

An easily understandable example of the role that water vapor plays in 
retaining heat comes from the southwest of the United States, where a 
summer evening walk in the near zero humidity of New Mexico may 
require a jacket, while your friends in Houston are sweltering in the high 
heat and humidity and dare not venture out at all. 

Both sides of the issue agree that water vapor is responsible for the 
lion’s share of the greenhouse effect, though the percentage of warming 
attributed has been in dispute. There is no agreement, however, on how 
much warming will occur due to increases in greenhouse gases, or on how 
much of that warming has been, or will be, man-made. 

Warming allows the atmosphere to increase the amount of water vapor 


it can carry, which can then add to the greenhouse warming effect (water- 
vapor feedback), but neither side agrees on the magnitude of this 
“multiplier” effect on global warming. Overblown estimates of water- 
vapor feedback will lead inescapably to overestimation of future warming 
in the climate models. These overestimates have been identified as one of 
the main reasons that these models have failed. 

Be that as it may, the truth about water vapor is the first inconvenient 
fact in this book. 

Inconvenient Fact 1 

Carbon dioxide is not the primary greenhouse gas. 

Before global warming became a political issue, it was generally 
accepted among physicists that water vapor contributes 60 to 95% of the 
greenhouse effect. It is no more sensible or workable for governments to 
attempt to regulate the weather by declaring C0 2 to be a pollutant than it 
would be for them to try to regulate water vapor or declare it to be a 

The role of water vapor within climate models and predictions based 
on it is an inexact science, as the amount of water vapor in the air varies 
markedly from place to place and from day to day. Absolute humidity can 
range from near zero in deserts and Antarctica—the Earth’s driest 
continent—to about 4% in the steamy tropics (Driessen 2014). Even a very 
small change in water vapor, however, can so affect the greenhouse effect 
as would a doubling of the present C0 2 concentration in the atmosphere 
(Robinson 2012). 

Downplaying or disregarding water vapor, or assigning too large a 
magnitude to feedbacks such as the water-vapor feedback that is thought to 
amplify the direct warming from C0 2 , serves to overemphasize Man’s 
contribution to greenhouse warming. 

Inconvenient Fact 2 

The warming effect of C0 2 declines as its concentration increases. 

Climate scientists have determined, and both sides agree, that the 


warming effect of each molecule of C0 2 decreases significantly 
(logarithmically) as its concentration increases. This is one reason why 
there was no runaway greenhouse warming when the concentration of C0 2 
was approaching 20 times that of today. This inconvenient fact, important 
though it is, is kept very well hidden and is rarely mentioned, for it 
undermines the theory of future catastrophic climate change (Hoskins 

Diminishing returns apply (Fig. 1-3). 

Figure 1-3: Less global warming for each additional 50 parts-per-million-by- 
volume of C0 2 concentration 

ppmv C0 2 

(Graph calculated using IPCC’s formula A T 0 = ~ln£ ;AR3, Ch. 
6.1 Courtesy Monckton 2017) 

Summary — Greenhouse Gases 

There is no dispute among scientists that C0 2 is a greenhouse gas, and that 
increasing C0 2 concentrations will increase global temperature to some 
degree. The $100 trillion question is: To what degree? The proponents of 
man-made warming will tell you emphatically that C0 2 is the prime cause 
of current temperature changes, while, as we shall see in subsequent 


chapters, true science demonstrates that the slight warming caused by C0 2 
is likely largely overwhelmed by the same natural climate drivers that have 
been active for hundreds of millions of years. 

2. Carbon Dioxide — The Foundation of Life, the 
Food of Plants 

Carbon dioxide, or C0 2 , is portrayed as the chief villain in the theory of 
catastrophic global warming. The belief that our carbon-based lifestyles 
will lead to an environmental Armageddon is fueling a multitude of anti¬ 
carbon initiatives, including efforts to stop the use of the three primary, 
carbon-based sources of energy: coal, oil and natural gas. It has been 
estimated that the “solutions” to global warming under the Paris agreement 
would cost the people of the world $100 trillion in lost wealth by 2100. 
According to Lomborg (2016), that $100 trillion would reduce global 
temperature by one-sixth of a degree Celsius (0.3 i°F). 

In December 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
issued a finding that carbon dioxide would be regulated as a pollutant 
because it “threatens the public health and welfare of current and future 
generations.” A month before the EPA finding was announced, Barack 
Obama declared that the U.S. would reduce its emissions of C0 2 by five- 
sixths of the 2005 levels over the next 30 years. As the Washington pundit 
George Will noted, a reduction of that size means that per-capita emissions 
would be about the same as they were in 1875 (Will 2009). 

Calculatedly damaging proposals, such as that of the U.N.’s Paris 
Climate Agreement, are all based on the questionable predictions of more 
than one hundred complex computer models of the climate. These models 
predict that a small rise in C0 2 concentration, altering the atmosphere by 
just 1 part in 2,000 by the end of this century, will cause a dramatic and 
harmful warming of the world’s weather (IPCC 2013). 

Efforts by environmental activists and government entities to stop 
pipelines, “keep fossil fuels in the ground,” and embrace “renewables,” 
such as solar and wind power, are driven by this unjustifiable aversion to 
C0 2 . The cost to our quality of life is already massive and would worsen 
as the decades pass if the anti-carbon proposals such as those in the Paris 
Accord were to be enacted. 

The policies proposed to reduce our reliance on carbon dioxide are 
economically harmful. They also raise several questions critical to the 
climate debate. (Yes, Virginia, there is a debate.) These questions are 
addressed in this chapter: 

Is today’s C0 2 concentration unusually high? 

How much of today’s C0 2 concentration is man-made? 

Would higher C0 2 concentrations be dangerous or beneficial? 

The concentration of C0 2 in the air has increased from about 280 parts 
per million (ppm) by volume in the mid-18 th century, to a little above 400 
ppm today. If we view the recent C0 2 data through the narrow time-frame 
of a few decades or centuries, this increase of 120 ppm in C0 2 
concentration appears significant. Yet appearances are deceiving. 

We shall look first at current and recent C0 2 levels. Then we shall 
travel back in geological time to get a long-term perspective. This will 
show clearly that our current levels of C0 2 , while rising, are significantly 
lower than they have been during nearly all of Earth’s history. We shall see 
also that today’s low C0 2 concentration is starving trees and plants of the 
food they need to achieve their full growth potential via photosynthesis. 

Inconvenient Fact 3 

First and foremost, C0 2 is plant food. 

C0 2 : The Basics 

Nearly 99% of the atmosphere consists of nitrogen and oxygen. The 
remaining 1% consists of several trace gases (Fig. 1-4), including C0 2 , 
whose current concentration represents just 0.04% of the atmosphere, or 
400 molecules out of every million. Current levels are an incredibly small 
percentage of the atmosphere, albeit an important one, as advanced plant 
life could not survive without at least 150 ppm. As we shall see, that 150 
ppm “line of death” is dangerously close to recent concentrations. 


Figure 1-4: Gases in the atmosphere, excluding water vapor 

(Source data from U S. National Weather Service) 

The largest contributor to C0 2 from human activities is the burning of 
fossil fuels for transport, heating, cooking, power, and a myriad of other 
uses. Using these fuels, we enjoy our modem conveniences, make our 
livings and enjoy healthier and longer lives than anybody in all of history 
(Fig. 1-5). 

Figure 1-5: Sources of man-made C0 2 emissions 

(Source data: Le Qu6re 2012) 

Interestingly, cleaner-burning, lower-cost, natural gas has been 
increasing its share of the energy sector. It emits significantly less C0 2 per 
unit of thermal energy than either coal or gasoline (Fig. 1-6). 


Figure 1-6: Pounds of C0 2 emitted, per million British Thermal Units (BTU, i.e., 
energy output) 


Pounds C02/million BTUs 

Coal (bituminous) 




Natural gas 


(Source data US El A 2017) 

Recent global C0 2 emissions have been dominated by China, the 
United States, the European Union and India (Boden 2017). These four 
were responsible for 61% of worldwide C0 2 , with about 190 countries 
making up the rest (Fig. 1-7). 

Figure 1-7: C0 2 emissions by country, 2014 

(Source data Boden 2017) 

Earth’s Carbon Dioxide History 

Direct atmospheric C0 2 measurements began in 1958 at the Mauna Loa 
Observatory, Hawaii. They show a steady rise in C0 2 from 314 ppm in 
1958 to 406 ppm in early 2017 (Fig. 1-8). 

The 40% increase, from 280 ppm in 1750 to 406 ppm in 2017, is 


widely recognized to be mainly man-made. This would be primarily from 
energy consumption, but also from cement manufacture, and a small 
amount from the flaring of natural gas. A longer-term view (Fig. 1-9) 
shows global C0 2 emissions began rising very slightly in the mid-1850s, 
with a significant acceleration since the mid-20 th Century. 

Is today’s C0 2 concentration of -400 ppm unprecedented, unusual, or 
in any way dangerous? What happened in the early climate, when C0 2 
concentrations very much higher than today’s prevailed? 

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 


(Source data: Tans 2017) 


Figure 1-9: Global man-made C0 2 emissions 

1760 1780 1800 1820 1840 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 

(Source data Boden 2016) 

Fortunately for researchers of historic C0 2 levels, accurate 
reconstructions of atmospheric C0 2 concentrations are available for 
hundreds of thousands of years from ice cores taken from Antarctica and 
Greenland. Air bubbles trapped within the layers of snowfall that 
compacted to form the glacial ice allow accurate dating and direct 
measurement of the ancient gases. 

Antarctica has had the longest continuous accumulations of ice. It 
provides data going back 800,000 years, while data from Greenland 
provides very useful information on Northern Hemisphere concentrations 
dating back to the previous interglacial period, 128,000 years ago. 

Fig. I-10 shows a 100,000-year record from Antarctica, dating back to 
the beginning of the most recent ice age. This shows the typical C0 2 
concentration decline during the glacial period, and the rise during the 
warmer interglacial period. We see that there was a rise of about 120 ppm 
since pre-industrial times. Is this just a normal increase during an 
interglacial period, or is it abnormally high? 


Figure 1-10: 100,000 years of C0 2 data from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica 

Going further back, we see C0 2 levels averaged about 280 ppm during 
similar stages of each of the interglacial periods (Fig. I-11). The current 
level of 400 ppm is higher by about 120 ppm, or -40% higher than the 
standard for preceding warm periods. 


Figure 1-11: 400,000 years of C0 2 data from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica 

(Source Data: Barnola 2003) 

Inconvenient Fact 4 

In the last four ice ages, the C0 2 level was dangerously low. 

During each of the last four ice ages, C0 2 concentration fell below 190 
ppm. At the end of the last ice age, it fell to 182 ppm, thought to be the 
lowest in the Earth’s history. Why is this alarming? Because below 150 
ppm, most terrestrial plant life cannot exist. We came within about 30 ppm 
(30 molecules out of every one million) to the extinction of most plant life 
on land, and with it the extinction of all higher terrestrial life-forms that 
depend on it. Bear in mind that, before we began adding C0 2 to the 
atmosphere, we weren’t sure that we wouldn’t cross that critical 150-ppm 
threshold during the next glacial period. (That period may be coming 
sooner than we think.) 


Both the relatively short-term data from ice cores shown above in 
Figure 1-11, and much longer-term data going back 140 million years 
(Berner 2001, Fig. 1-12) show an alarming downward trend toward C0 2 
starvation. The combustion of fossil fuels has allowed humanity to 
increase concentrations of this beneficial molecule, and perhaps avert an 
actual C0 2 -related climate apocalypse. 

Inconvenient Fact 5 

140-million-year trend of dangerously decreasing C0 2 


Figure 1-12: The dangerous 140-million-year decline in CO ; 

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 

Million years before present 

(Source data: Berner 2001) 

The forecasters of climate doom say—correctly, as far as it goes—that 
the C0 2 level has never been this high in at least the last 400,000 years. 
They prefer to view the increase of about 120 ppm over the last 150 years 
through the narrow lens of recent geological time. To properly analyze the 
current levels, we need to jump into our “Way Back Machine.” When we 
put the data into the proper context, it leads us to our next inconvenient 

Inconvenient Fact 6 

Our current geologic period (Quaternary) has the lowest average 
C0 2 levels in the history of the Earth. 

Contrary to the oft-repeated mantra of the media and the so-called 
“experts” that today’s C0 2 concentration is unprecedented, our current 
geologic period, the Quaternary, has seen the lowest average levels of 


carbon dioxide in the Earth’s long history. Though C0 2 concentrations 
briefly peaked 320,000 years ago at 300 ppm, the average for the past 
800,000 years was 230 ppm (Luthi 2008). 

The average C0 2 concentration in the preceding 600 million years 
(Fig. 1-13) was more than 2,600 ppm, nearly seven times our current 
amount and 2.5 times the worst case predicted by the IPCC for 2100. Our 
current geologic period (Quaternary) has the lowest average C0 2 
concentration in the history of the Earth (Fig. 1-14). 

Figure 1-13: Carbon Dioxide—600 Million Years of Data 

Million years before present 

(Source data: Berner 2001) 

It should be obvious to impartial observers of the long-term data that, 
rather than experiencing excessively high levels of carbon dioxide, we are 
in fact in a period of C0 2 starvation. While short historical periods are 
used to support apocalyptic visions of life in a world with slightly 
increased C0 2 , perspective is everything: the increase of -120 ppm since 
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is barely recognizable when 
viewed in the context of a longer section of Earth’s C0 2 history. 


Figure 1-14: Average C0 2 concentrations in 11 geological periods 

Is 400 PPM Really a C0 2 Tipping Point? 

We are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond 
which there is no redemption. 

— James Hansen, Former head of 
NASA’s Goddard Institute for 
Space Studies 

This March [2014], global levels of C0 2 passed 400 ppm ... 
Already we are seeing the deadly effects of climate change in the 
form of rising seas, monster storms, wildfires, and extreme weather 
of all kinds. Passing 400 ppm is an ominous sign of what might 
come next. 


The notion of a “tipping point” is not science. It is propaganda. The 
climate extremists have declared, on no evidence, that 400 ppm C0 2 is a 
“tipping point” beyond which the Earth cannot recover, without a drastic 
reduction in C0 2 emission. Never mind that, as Fig. 1-13 shows, C0 2 


levels were many multiples of 400 ppm during virtually all of Earth’s 
history. This “tipping point” was an entirely arbitrary round number 
selected because it would soon be reached. The “tipping point” might just 
as easily—and just as arbitrarily—have been set at 425 ppm, but that 
would have delayed the supposed launch of climate Armageddon to 2020 
or later. It would have diminished the Damoclean fear of impending doom 
needed to pass the economically destructive anti-C0 2 legislation that 
would damage the West and the world. 

The Social Benefits of Increasing Carbon 

It has been well documented that more C0 2 directly benefits plant growth. 
De Saussure (1804) was the first to link high C0 2 concentration to faster 
plant growth. Since then, many thousands of peer-reviewed studies have 
backed up his conclusion. Research has also shown that increased C0 2 
helps plants to resist drought, warmer weather, pollution and other 
environmental stresses. 

Inconvenient Fact 7 

More C0 2 means more plant growth. 

Inconvenient Fact 8 

More C0 2 helps to feed more people worldwide. 

In the “Biological Change” section of the Nongovernmental 
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Climate Change 
Reconsidered (Idso 2014), the benefits of higher C0 2 concentration to the 


production of the world’s food are listed. Here are the main points: 

Nearly all plants increase photosynthesis in response to increasing 
CO 2 (“CO 2 fertilization ”). 

More C0 2 makes plants grow faster, and with less stress and less 

Forests are growing faster in response to increasing C0 2 . 

More CO 2 stimulates growth of beneficial bacteria in both soil and 

CO 2 fertilization, leading to more plant growth, means less erosion 
of topsoil. 

More CO 2 means bigger crop yields, and more and bigger flowers. 
More C0 2 fosters glomalin, a beneficial protein created by root 

More C0 2 means less water loss, less irrigation, and more soil 

More C0 2 helps plants to create natural repellants to fight insect 

A summary of 270 laboratory studies (Idso, 2013) of 83 food crops 
showed that increasing C0 2 concentrations by 300 ppm will increase plant 
growth by an average of 46% across all crops studied (dry-weight 
biomass). Fig. 1-15 shows 45 crops, with the percentage increase expected 
from each crop, and (color-coded) with the cash benefit to the global 
economy resulting from the C0 2 -driven increase in crop yield for that crop 
in the half-century from 1961 to 2010. 

Conversely, a large number of studies show the adverse effects of a 
low-C0 2 environment. For instance, Overdieck (1988) indicated that, 
compared to today, plant growth was reduced by 8% in the period before 
the Industrial Revolution, with its low concentration of 280 ppm C0 2 . 

While it is only common sense that plants thrive in response to higher 
C0 2 concentrations, it is also relevant that the ancestors of the plants on 
which we rely first evolved and prospered when C0 2 levels were up to 10 
times today’s levels. Therefore, the proposed attempts by climate 
extremists to reduce C0 2 concentrations would be bad for plants, bad for 
animals, and bad for humankind. 


Although I do not pretend to speak for the planet’s flora, I am quite 
certain that, if plants had a say in the matter, they would not be lobbying 
for reductions in C0 2 levels. For plants, C0 2 is food. They need more of it, 
not less. 

Inconvenient Fact 9 

More CO 2 means moister soil. 


Figure 1-15: Crop yield growth and cash benefit with 300 ppm more C0 2 (based 
on 3,586 experiments on 549 plant species) 

Carrots & turnips 
Fresh fruit lot elswhere specified 
Tropical fresh fruit not elsewhere specified 


Sugar beet 

Dry beans 





Groundnuts with shells 









Increase in 



+44 8% ^ 72SponS( 

Cucumbers & gherkins 

♦44.8% doubled CC 







Pumpkins, squash & gourds 

+ 41 .}% 

Fresh vegetables not elsswhere specified 

Chillies & peppers 




Cabbages & other brassicas 


Sunflower seeds 


Paddy rice 


Mangoes, mangosteensi guavas +36.0% 










+ 34 . 8 % 

Sugar cane 


Sweet potatoes 




Tangerines, mandarins 


Dry peas 

+ 29 . 2 % 



Maize ■+24.1% 

Dry onions +20.0’• 

Sorghum +19.9% 

Lettuce & ciieory J+18.5% 



| melons +4.7% 


Cash benefit from 
C0 2 fertilization, 
of crops. 1961-20101 

$100-149 bn 
$45-99 bn 
$30-45 bn 
$15-30 bn 
$0-15 bn 

(Idso 2013, courtesy Monckton 2017) 

There is a growing realization that more C0 2 in the air means more 
moisture in the soil, as Swann reveals (2016). The major cause of water 
loss in plants is attributable to transpiration, in which the stomata or pores 
on the undersides of the leaves are open to absorb C0 2 . With more C0 2 , 
the stomata are open for shorter periods, the leaves lose less water, and 
more moisture remains in the soil. 


These benefits are extremely important to our future ability to feed a 
growing population, as observed by Madhu (2015). He reports on the 
beneficial results of increasing C0 2 on soybean growth: 

These results show a direct and interactive effect of elevated [COf 
and soil moisture on plant growth that will affect not only ... global 
food security but also nutritional security. 

We will look at the benefits of C0 2 in more detail later, when we deal 
with the various imaginary climate apocalypses. For now, let us note that 
decreases in drought, heat waves and forest fires have all been linked to 
C0 2 -related increases in soil moisture. Benefits such as these from 
increased C0 2 concentration are inconvenient facts that the climate 
extremists would prefer to suppress. They are seldom included in official 
economic assessments of the supposed “social cost” of climate change. 

Summary — C0 2 and Humankind 

Rather than being at unprecedentedly high levels, C0 2 is at one of its 
lowest concentrations in the long history of the Earth. What has been 
called a miracle molecule, C0 2 in greater amounts is greening the Earth 
with an astonishing increase in the productivity of plants and trees 
worldwide—an increase so dramatic that it can been seen by satellites 
from space. As usual, this good news is just the opposite of what we are 
being told by those who call themselves “green.” 

The attempt to demonize C0 2 as dangerously high at more than 400 
ppm is nothing more than another of H. L. Mencken’s hobgoblins of 
alarm. It is conveniently calculated to cause fear, so that people will 
docilely accept drastic and economically destructive policies. So far, the 
global-warming hobgoblin has been extraordinarily effective. Most 
governments now have in place economically damaging regimes of 
taxation and regulation intended to curtail the use of fossil fuels. The 
policies themselves are scientifically baseless and economically senseless, 
and their cost, in lives and treasure, is heavy. 



Worrying that 400 ppm is too high is like worrying about your fuel 
tank overflowing when it reaches the 1/8 mark during filling. 

— Pierre Gosselin 

What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is 
how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting 
propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special 
interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that carbon 
dioxide from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying 

It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the 
history of the world—that carbon dioxide, the life of plants, was 
considered for a time to be a deadly poison. 

— Ed Ring 2008 

3. Temperature — A Question of Degree 

We saw in the last chapter how proponents of man-made climate hysteria 
have mischaracterized current and predicted concentrations of carbon 
dioxide. C0 2 is demonized because of the supposed link between it, 
warmer weather and a host of purported catastrophes. 

As with carbon dioxide, most of the media-driven hysteria and climate- 


science research on temperature has focused on the recent record: just 250 
years for thermometers and the past 50 years for satellites. And, as with 
C0 2 reporting, a focus only on these relatively short time spans tends to 
provide a skewed interpretation of the data. 

For example, the climate alarmists tell us that the warming of recent 
decades is unusual and unprecedented. They also breathlessly report that 
last month or year or decade (take your pick) was the highest in recorded 
history. Yet recorded history is a blink of an eye in geological time. The 
catastrophists are viewing the climate through the narrowly focused lens of 
modern history. To put the data in its proper context, one needs to take a 
long-term geologic perspective—thousands and millions of years. 

As with C0 2 , we will look first at temperatures in the modem era and 
then place the data in its proper perspective by gradually going back from 
decades to hundreds of millions of years. 

First, however, we must deal with the elephant in the room—perhaps 
the most pivotal and controversial issue involved in the climate-science 

The Hockey-Stick Graph and ‘Unprecedented’ 
Global Warming 

Until 1998 the “consensus” view was that over the last several 
thousand years temperatures had risen and fallen as shown in noted 
climatologist Hubert Lamb’s graph (Fig. 1-16), reproduced in 1990 in the 
First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC). The graph shows warming beginning in the late-17 th 
century as the Earth began to come out of the coldest portion of the Little 
Ice Age (1250 - 1850), followed by recent temperatures significantly less 
than those experienced in the Medieval Warm Period (950 - 1250). 

This view, which prevailed before the politicization of climate science, 
was based on extensive historical documents and measured temperatures. 
It was understood that several previous warm periods had occurred over 
the last 10,000 years (including the Modern, Medieval, Roman, Minoan, 
Egyptian Old-Kingdom and Holocene climate optima) and that all were 
warmer than today, even though C0 2 concentration was only 70% of 
today’s. This inconvenient contradiction of lower C0 2 and higher 


temperatures did not fit the template that connected rising C0 2 to a 
harmful temperature increase to justify draconian measures for reducing 
our carbon footprint. 

Even more inconvenient was that our current warming trend had 
actually begun more than 200 years before any significant man-made 
contribution to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The traditional 
scientific account of the recent history of our planet’s temperature could 
not be allowed to stand if the theory of catastrophic humaninduced 
warming were to be accepted. 

Figure 1-16: Hubert Lamb’s temperature graph of the past 1,100 years 

Enter Michael Mann, a hitherto unknown climate scientist. Mann, with 
two colleagues, published two papers (Mann 1998 and 1999) that 
purported to reconstruct 1,000 years of the Earth’s temperature. They 
stated that “temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were 
unprecedented” and that “even the warmer intervals in the reconstruction 
pale in comparison with mid-to-late 20th-century temperatures.” 

Their results were summarized in a graph that has become a poster 
child for claims of human-driven temperature increases (Fig. 1-17). It 
featured steadily declining temperatures from 1000 - 1900 A.D., followed 
by rapidly increasing temperatures in the 20 th century. The well- 
documented Medieval Warm Period was suddenly gone, along with the 


uncomfortably cold Little Ice Age. Most importantly, the sudden ramp up 
of temperatures coincided with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution 
and steadily increasing C0 2 levels. Because the graph had a 900-year shaft 
of slowly declining temperature and then a short blade of rapidly 
increasing temperature, it was dubbed the “Hockey Stick.” 

The planet’s self-proclaimed climate guardians quickly latched upon 
the hockeystick graph as “proof’ of a causal link between greenhouse gas 
and dangerous warming. The graph was a centerpiece of IPCC’s Third 
Assessment Report in 2001. 

Figure 1-17: The Mann-made hockey stick 

(IPCC 2001) 

Why the ‘Hockey-Stick’ Graph Matters 

If Mann’s depiction of temperature over the last millennium were correct, 
then his work might form a solid basis for recent warming being mostly 
man-made. This infamous chart featured prominently in A1 Gore’s movie 
and book An Inconvenient Truth, and also as a backdrop to many IPCC 
press conferences. 


Mann’s basis for the graph in Fig. 1-17 has been heavily criticized. 
Those who challenged it include many scientists who support the idea oj 
man-made warming. 

First, Mann relied heavily for temperature proxies on a relatively small 
dataset of tree-ring data primarily from California bristlecone pines, and a 
very small sample from cedars on the Gaspe Peninsula (wherever that is). 

The IPCC itself had previously issued warnings that tree-ring data are a 
poor source for temperature reconstruction. The reason is that the width of 
the annual tree-ring will grow thicker not only when the weather is 
warmer, but also when it is wetter, or when more C0 2 in the air fertilizes 
the tree and boosts its growth. 

Even the scientists who provided the data for the bristlecone-pine 
series gave specific warnings against using it for temperature 
reconstruction. Mann used the data anyway. It provided the results he 
wanted. Not only did he use questionable proxies, he cherry-picked a 
relatively small number of tree-rings and ignored a greater number of trees 
from the same area that did not show the results that he desired. 

Secondly, a detailed review by two Canadian researchers (McIntyre 
1998) into the mathematical and statistical methodology used by Mann 
revealed multiple serious errors. Amazingly, no matter what data the two 
scientists plugged into Mann’s formula, it invariably produced a “hockey 
stick”. They concluded, therefore, that Mann’s hockey-stick reconstruction 
of changes in the Earth’s temperature was “primarily an artefact (sic) of 
poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal 

Absence of the medieval warming in the Hockey Stick graph might 

simply mean tree ring proxies are unreliable, not that the climate 

really was relatively cooler. 

— Professor John Christy, Director 
of the Earth System Science 
Center at Univ. of Alabama, 
Huntsville in testimony to 
Congress, March 31, 2001 (Steyn 

Mann’s hockey stick has indeed been substantially discredited 


— Dr. Hamish Campbell, PhD, 
Geologist New Zealand’s 
Institute of Geological and 
Nuclear Sciences 

We now know that the hockey stick is fraudulent 

— Dr. Michael R. Fox, Professor of 
Chemistry at Idaho State 
University (Steyn 2015) 

In the coming sections, we shall see what the actual physical data and 
historical records really tell us about temperature and about whether our 
current temperatures are really unusual and unprecedented, as proponents 
of climate alarmism such as Michael Mann would have us believe. Look at 
the data. Make up your own mind. 

Modern Instrumental Data 

There are three ways to measure atmospheric temperature directly using 
instruments. Each has limitations. 

Method_First Used 

Land and ocean surface thermometers 1659 

Weather balloons Mid-1950s 

Satellites 1979 

Satellites are the most reliable temperature measuring tool and have 
nearly global coverage, but have a very short history. Weather balloons are 
also reliable but can usually be used only over land and only go back 60 
years or so. Thermometers have the longest record: the Central England 
Temperature Record, dating from 1659, was the first-ever regional record, 
but their accuracy is somewhat limited because local effects such as 
increasing urbanization can produce artificial localized warming. 

Satellite data for temperature history is preferable to other methods due 
to the accuracy it provides, but satellites have been providing data for less 
than 40 years. The data reveals a nearly 20-year trend of warming (1979 - 
1998) beginning when the first climate satellites were launched in 1979 
(Fig. 1-18). That warming trend ended with an exceptionally warm 1998 


and then 18 years of essentially flat temperatures. 

Figure 1-18 Satellite measured global warming since 1979: <0.5°C (0.9°F) 

Using only this satellite data is a bit iffy because of the short 
temperature history. Additionally, the Earth was just exiting a 33 year-long 
cooling trend just as the first climate satellite was launched. Because of the 
long cooling trend, the earliest satellite data likely captured temperatures 
that were the coldest since the mid-1940s. At the Earth’s surface, the two 
longest-standing terrestrial thermometer datasets are kept up by the U.K. 
Met Office. They include the HadCRUT4 dataset, which has been 
continuously updated since 1850, and the Central England temperature 
record, the world’s longest regional record that dates to 1659. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and most 
other agencies promoting a link between human activities and the current 
warming, use the HadCRUT4 data (Fig. 1-19). The graph shows 
temperature data from 1850 to 2017 derived from direct thermometer 
readings and reveals that there has been a general overall warming trend of 
about 0.85°C (1.5°F) over the last 167 years. Significantly, the data 
collection began around the time that many researchers deem to be near the 
end of the 500-plus-year “Little Ice Age” in the mid-1850s (more on that 


Figure 1-19: Thermometer data show a temperature increase of 0.85°C (1.5°F) 

I860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 

(Source data: HadCRUT4, 2017) 

The warming has occurred in fits and starts with three distinct periods 
of cooling or flat temperatures and two periods of warming. A third period 
of warming may be occurring now, but time will tell. 

The reason that the IPCC and other pro-alarmist groups use the 
relatively short HadCRUT4 dataset rather than the much longer records 
that are available is that it is much easier to allege a causal linkage between 
C0 2 increase and warming if only looking at the relatively short term. If 
we review the above data and add the human C0 2 emissions, one could 
make a reasoned argument that there is likely a connection between 
increasing C0 2 emissions and rising temperature (Fig. 1-20). As we have 
seen in the carbon dioxide section, however, context is everything. 


Figure 1-20: Temperature vs. C0 2 (1850 - 2013) 

(Source data: Temperature: HadCRUT4, C0 2 Boden 2016) 

Two hugely inconvenient facts emerge upon close inspection of the 
above chart. Significant carbon dioxide emissions didn’t start ramping up 
until shortly after the end of the Second World War. Yet, since 1945, more 
than 70% of that time frame included periods of either declining or flat 
temperatures (Fig. 1-21). 

During two long periods of time from 1945 to 1979 and from 1998 to 
2015, temperatures either ceased increasing or actually fell. Both of these 
long periods co-incided with rising C0 2 . If C0 2 is driving dangerous 
warming, as the promoters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) 
would have us believe, why did more than 70% of the postwar period 
show stable or even falling temperatures despite the fact that C0 2 
concentrations were inexorably rising? This fact alone should cause any 
open-minded observer to question the validity of the claims made by those 
promoting the myth of a radical and dangerous man-made C0 2 -driven 


Figure 1-21: Stable or falling temperatures prevailed in most of the period 1945 












For nearly 18 years, beginning in 1998, the warming stopped. 
According to the HadCRUT4 dataset (Fig. 1-22) and backed up by satellite 
and balloon data, the global warming that began in 1976 suddenly and 
inexplicably stopped. According to global warming theory, humankind’s 
ongoing contribution of C0 2 should have continued to warm the planet’s 
atmosphere. Yet, for almost 18 years, the warming stopped as C0 2 
relentlessly increased. 

Inconvenient Fact 10 

Recent Inconvenient Pause of 18 years in warming, despite rise in 
C0 2 

Realization among the leaders of climate alarm that their supposedly 
infallible theory had suspended its functioning for some unknown reason 
forced them to modify their terminology. It was during this long period 
without warming that “global warming” morphed into the all-inclusive 
term “climate change. ” Now, anything at all out of the ordinary can be 
attributed to man’s climate influences, even though climate, like baseball, 
sets out-of-the-ordinary records all the time. In the climate, out of the 
ordinary is ordinary. 


Based on the most recent data and confirmed by examination of 
satellite data, the Inconvenient Pause may have ended in 2015. As we shall 
see by looking at longer-term data, additional warming probably will 
continue for at least a portion of this century, but likely not to the levels 
predicted by the IPCC. 

Figure 1-22: An inconvenient pause: 18 years of no warming yet C0 2 increased 


(Source data: Temperature: HadCRUT4, C0 2 : Tans 2017) 

39S I. 

390 o 

385 .2 

380 a 

375 E 

370 g 


365 c 



360 2 

It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future. 

— Yogi Berra 

If you can’t explain the pause, you can’t explain the cause. 

— The Hockey Schtick 

Much attention has been paid to the recent nearly 18-year Inconvenient 
Pause in warming shown above in Figure 1-22 and rightly so. It is very 
recent and seems to contradict the main thrust of the alarmists’ projections. 
Just as important as the Pause, but not so much discussed, is the significant 
33-year span of global cooling from 1944 - 1976 that coincided with 
steeply increasing C0 2 concentration as global industrial activity picked up 
after the Second World War (Fig. 1-23). 

While studying geology in the 1970s, I was taught that we likely were 
heading toward another ice age based on the previous 30-plus years of 


cooling and the fact that our inter-glacial period had persisted for longer 
than some previous warm periods. This was considered “settled science.” 
It was not a question of whether the next ice age would come, but when. 

Inconvenient Fact 11 

C0 2 rose after the Second World War, but temperature fell. 

Figure 1-23: For 33 postwar years, C0 2 rose quickly but temperature fell. 

The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research 
into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must 
now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale 
death and misery for mankind. 

— Nigel Calder, 1975 

If present trends continue, the world will be... eleven degrees 
colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take us 
to put us in another ice age. 

— Kenneth Watt, during the first 
Earth Day celebration in 1970 

Today’s global-warming advocates are as adamant about their beliefs 
as were yesterday’s global-cooling enthusiasts, but they will probably turn 
out to be just as wrong. 


REALLY Inconvenient Fact 12 

Modern warming began long before SUVs or coal-fired plants. 

As we saw in the last section on carbon dioxide, in the climate debate, 
context is everything. 

Earlier I wrote that, if Michael Mann’s modeling of global 
temperatures were correct, and we had 900 years of cooling followed by a 
sharp increase in the 20th Century, then that would be strong evidence 
linking man’s activities to modern warming. The counter-evidence to the 
Ma nn argument would be data showing that modem warming began 
before C0 2 began to rise sharply. It would suggest that natural forces were 
the primary driver of warming prior to 1900 and likely remain so today. 

Some Important Charts 

The following charts may be some of the most important in the entire book. 

These charts demonstrate conclusively that the current trend of increasing 
temperatures began long before anyone drove the first Model T to the 
grocery store, and long before C0 2 levels cracked 300 ppm. Multiple lines 
of evidence support the notion that warming following the Little Ice Age 
predated the recent rise in C0 2 concentration. This inconvenient data is 
part of the cumulative evidence that will eventually drive the final nails 
into the coffin of the catastrophic man-made warming theory. 

The Central England temperature record (HadCET) contains the 
longest continuously measured regional temperature dataset in the world, 
going back more than 350 years. As we shall see, promotion of this longer 
record by the IPCC would have cut the legs out from under their primary 
mission of linking human-caused greenhouse gases to harmful increases in 
temperature. It would also have thoroughly discredited the Mann-made 
hockey-stick interpretation of steadily lowering temperatures until the 20th 
century and then a sudden C0 2 -driven warming. 

The Central England record (Fig. 1-24) began in 1659, during some of 
the coldest temperatures in the last 4,500 years. Its earliest data was 


captured during a period of extreme cold from 1670 to 1715 that is known 
as the Maunder Minimum, after Edward Maunder, a researcher at the 
Royal Observatory at Greenwich, London, who noticed that it coincided 
with a period of sharp decline in solar activity. The Maunder Minimum 
was the coldest period during the 600-year Little Ice Age (1250 - 1850), 
which brought famine, poor harvests, disease and widespread loss of life. 

As we shall see, humanity has historically suffered greatly during cold 
periods. The Little Ice Age was no exception, so the gradual warming that 
began in the late 1600s was welcome relief to the inhabitants of that 

The population of northern Europe, who had suffered the most during 
the Little Ice Age (Iceland, for instance, lost half its population), could not 
realize it at the time, but the beneficial warming that began in the late 17 th 
century would be used 300 years later by climate alarmists to assert that 
dangerous man-made greenhouse gases were increasing temperature. 

Figure 1-24: Greater than 300 years of warming in central England from 1695 - 

Modern warming that began at the turn of the 18 th century continues to 
this day, more than 300 years later. This gradual recovery from the death- 


dealing cold of the Little Ice Age was appropriately dubbed “The long, 
slow thaw” by Tony Brown (2011). 

The warming began more than 200 years before any significant 
contribution of man-made C0 2 to the atmosphere. This early warming was 
entirely naturally driven and is directly at odds with Mann’s hockey-stick 
depiction of steady cooling during this time. Those natural forces driving 
the temperature increases in the 18 th and 19 th centuries did not suddenly 
cease to act at the dawn of the 20th century. 

Inconvenient Fact 13 

Melting glaciers and rising seas confirm warming predated 
increases of C0 2 . 

Melting glaciers and rising sea levels are the direct result of warming. 
Supporters of catastrophic human-induced warming often cite them as 
proof that the weather is warming. Inconveniently for them, however, the 
evidence shows that the global warming causing the rise in sea levels and 
the retreat of the glaciers began long before any significant man-made C0 2 
increases could have influenced either. Both are directly the result of the 
natural warming that began in the year 1695. 

In about 1250, temperature began its descent into the depths of the 
Little Ice Age, and in only a couple of decades the waves of cold started 
the march of the glaciers in both hemispheres (Grove 2001). The 
advancing ice often had severe consequences for local populations, 
destroying many villages. The area of Chamonix in southeastern France, 
for example, is estimated to have lost one-third of its tillable land to 
avalanches, snow and glaciers (Fagan 2000). 

Because these events had profound negative effects on the local 
populace, detailed records of glacial advances and retreats began to be 
kept. These records allow us to determine the extent of glaciers with great 
accuracy going back several hundred years. Figure 1-25 shows a summary 
of glacial-length records from 169 sites around the world relative to their 
extent in 1950 (Oerlemans 2005). 

We saw that the current warming trend began in the late 17 th century 
(Figure 1-24), but the glaciers could not begin to retreat until the 


atmosphere had warmed sufficiently to allow summer ice loss to exceed 
winter accumulations. That glacial “tipping point” occurred around 1800, 
with full-on retreat by 1820. Thus began two centuries of worldwide 
glacial retreat that continues today. Notwithstanding man’s influence on 
climate in recent decades, there has been no acceleration in the rate of 

The glaciers began to recede at least a century before appreciable 
quantities of man-made C0 2 began to accumulate in the atmosphere and 
nearly a century before the Mann-made Hockey Stick showed warming 
had started. 

One more nail in the climate alarmists’ coffin. 

Sea level and glaciation go hand in hand. When water is locked up in 
the ice of glacial advances, sea level drops. Conversely, warming and the 
glacial retreat that comes with it return water chiefly to the oceans, raising 
sea level. Again, we see that the rising sea level began a century before the 
IPCC and Michael Mann tell us it should have occurred (Figure. 1-26). 

Conclusive evidence from multiple lines of reasoning shows that, 
contrary to Michael Mann’s hockey-stick graph, warming began 300 years 
ago and marked the beginning of the end of the Little Ice Age. 

Was this warming unusual or unprecedented? Figure 1-27 is a 
compilation of reconstructed temperature histories using a variety of proxy 
sources including ice cores and lake sediments. Loehle (2008) compiled 18 
peer-reviewed studies of 2,000-year-long data series using sources other 
than tree-rings. (The author believed that the tree-ring data such as those 
used by Dr. Mann for his hockey stick could not accurately capture long¬ 
term climate changes, and so excluded tree-ring data from his summary.) 


Figure 1-25: 200 years of glacial retreat 


Figure 1-26: Greater than 200 years of sea-level rise 


(Source data: Jevrejeva 2008, PSMSL 2008) 

In direct contradiction of Mann’s hockey stick, Dr. Loehle’s data 
confirmed not only that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age 
existed but also that the current warming trend began more than 300 years 
ago, just as the Central England data in Figure 1-24 show. 

He concluded that his compilation of proxies: 

...shows the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age 
(LIA) quite clearly, with the MWP being approximately 0.3°C 
warmer than 20 th -century values at these 18 sites. 


Figure 1-27: 2,000 years of temperature data 

(Source data: Loehle 2008ab) 

Placing recent warming into the framework of longer datasets is a key 
to understanding whether our modern temperatures are similar to past 
climate events, rather than being an unusual occurrence. Fortunately, we 
have quite detailed and accurate temperature data from the Antarctica and 
Greenland ice cores. In Antarctica, the data reach back 810,000 years, 
while in Greenland several ice cores provide valuable data for more than 
150,000 years. 

Since this book is for non-scientists, we shall not go into the details of 
how temperatures are calculated using ice data. Briefly, the ratio of two 
isotopes of oxygen is used as a guide to the temperature of the air at the 
time when it was trapped by the weight of snow above it. The scientific 
basis for temperature predictions using this method is solid and has been 
verified with comparisons to known recent temperatures. 

Let us first look at the most extensive ice-core history available. It was 
retrieved from ice core drilling in Antarctica. Figure 1-28 represents 
800,000 years of temperature data. The 100,000-year cycles of ice ages 
and interglacial warm periods show up clearly. 


Figure 1-28: The ups and downs of temperature over the past 800,000 years 

800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 

Years before present 

(Source data: Jouzel 2007a) 

Inconvenient Fact 14 

Temperatures have changed for 800,000 years. It wasn’t us. 

(This Inconvenient Fact deserves to be repeated often.) 

The periods of glaciation last for 70,000 - 125,000 years, while the 
warmer interglacials last 10,000 to 15,000 years. Importantly, we are now 
about 11,000 years into our current interglacial period, which may end 
within the next century or last another several thousand years. In any case, 
the beneficial interglacial warmth that we are enjoying now will end at 
some point in the not too distant future (in a geologic sense). When that 
next ice age descends upon us, it will be a true climate apocalypse 
accompanied by crop failures, famine, mass emigration from colder to 
warmer regions and unprecedented population loss. 

The next ice age could arrive at any time... Don’t sell your parka. 

Inconvenient Fact 15 

Interglacials usually last 10,000- 15,000 years. Ours is 11,000 
years old. 

A closer look at the last four glacial cycles dating back 400,000 years 
is still more revealing (Figure 1-29). Now the inconvenient facts start to 
pile up. 


Figure 1-29: The ups and downs of temperature over the past 400,000 years 

400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 

Years before present 

(Source data: Jouzel 2007a) 

Inconvenient Fact 16 

Each of the four previous inter-glacial warming periods was 
significantly warmer than our current temperature. 

Inconvenient Fact 17 

The last interglacial, -120,000 years ago, was 8°C (14°F) warmer 
than today. The polar bears survived. Greenland didn’t melt. 

Recent research by the Niels Bohr Institute (Dahl-Jensen 2013) was the 
first to target ice accumulated in Greenland during the previous interglacial 
period, known as the Eemian. The results are very inconvenient for those 
promoting climate doom. The results revealed that the Eemian interglacial 
warm period, between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago, was much warmer 
than previously thought. In fact, it was, 8°C (14.4°F) warmer than today. 


The implications are enormous. 

Even though the temperatures during the Eemian were 2.5°C (4.5°F) 
higher than even the most aggressive IPCC predictions, the Greenland ice 
sheet lost only a quarter of its mass. While 25% is significant, it is far less 
than the alarmist predictions of total ice elimination in response to far less 
warming. Also, polar bears evolved about 150,000 years ago and survived 
the Eemian warm period even though there was seldom any polar ice. That 
fact alone discredits theories of a pending polar-bear extinction caused by 
moderate man-made warming. 

The most recent IPCC Summary Report predicted complete destruction 
of the Greenland ice sheet in response to much less warming than during 
the Eemian: 

Models project that a local annual-average warming of larger than 

3°C sustained for millennia would lead to virtually a complete 

melting of the Greenland ice sheet. 

Or not. 

Figure 1-30 is a closer look at the last 10,000 years of data from the 
Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) reaching back to the beginning of our 
current interglacial period. This chart should finally convince you that the 
global warming scare is just that, a fanciful hobgoblin profitable to its 
inventors and cripplingly expensive to the rest of us. 

If Michael Mann, A1 Gore and other promoters of climate catastrophe 
cannot show that the current warming trend is “unusual and 
unprecedented”, they have no cause for the alarm they are sowing. Figure 
1-30 may be the most substantial piece of evidence that the modern 
warming is neither unusual nor unprecedented. Rather, it is very similar to 
nine other warming trends of the last 10,000 years. This chart, in which the 
present temperature for a coring site known as GISP2 is estimated from the 
work of researchers at Ohio State University (Box 2009), should be first on 
your list of “why global-warming alarmists are wrong.” 


Figure 1-30: 10,000 years of blessed warmth 

(Source data: temperature: Alley 2004; current temperature: Box 2009) 

The damning data show that, for more than 6,100 years (or 60%) of the 
current interglacial warm period, the temperature was warmer than it is 
today. Of the nine earlier significant periods of warming since the end of 
the last ice age, five had higher rates of temperature increase (Figure 1-31) 
and seven had larger total increases in temperature. Moreover, each of the 
previous warming cycles experienced significantly higher temperatures 
than today. It should be clear, based on this chart, that our current warming 
trend is a natural and predictable result of our fortunate exit out of the 
Little Ice Age. 

Unusual? Unprecedented? No and no. 

From these 10,000 years of data, the inconvenient facts now come fast and 

Inconvenient Fact 18 

Temperatures changed during the past 10,000 years. It wasn’t us. 

Inconvenient Fact 19 

Today’s total warming and warming rate are similar to earlier 


Inconvenient Fact 20 

It was warmer than today for 6,100 of the last 10,000 years. 

Inconvenient Fact 21 

The current warming trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented. 

Figure 1-31: Five earlier warming periods had higher rates of warming than 








Rate of increase in temperature per year (°C) 

during warming trend 

GISP2 Data 


12 3 


Warming Trend # 

(Source data: Alley 2004) 

Temperature is rarely constant. It is either rising or falling, and quite 
substantially at that. There have been nine significant previous warming 
trends over the last 10,000 years. These warming trends are similar to 
today’s, but each ended with much higher temperatures than today’s. Even 
if you slept through your history classes, you might recall that there were 
no SUVs or coal-fired power plants operating in China during these 
previous warming periods, yet temperatures rose and fell anyway. The 
warming and cooling of the Earth have natural causes, and those natural 
causes did not suddenly halt at the start of the Industrial Revolution. 

If the past is the signpost to the future, we will see some more naturally 
driven warming before we go back into the next cooling cycle. For the 
sake of mankind, let us hope that the next cooling trend will not happen 
too soon, and will not take us into the next ice age. 


Stepping Millions of Years Back in Time 

The ice-core data revealed much about how our current temperature trend 
compares with others since the present era of 100,000-year glaciation 
cycles began. Five million years of data (Lisiecki 2005) show that, overall, 
our planet has experienced a long decline in temperatures. Beginning 3.5 
million years ago, a series of 45 ice ages began. 

This long period of increasing cold began with ice ages on a 41,000- 
year cycle and included 33 separate glacial events. For the last 1.25 million 
years we have been in a more severe 100,000 year-cycle in which, during 
13 ice ages, there were glaciations lasting typically 90,000 years and 
interglacial warm periods lasting about 10,000 years (Carter 2011). 

Inconvenient Fact 22 

Earth’s orbit and tilt drive glacial-interglacial changes. 

The glacial-interglacial cycles are controlled by changes in the Earth’s 
tilt and the shape of its orbit that occur in predictable cycles. The 
eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit (i.e., how far the shape of the 
orbit differs from a perfect circle) varies in 100,000-year cycles. The tilt or 
obliquity of the Earth’s axis varies in 41,000-year cycles. The Earth also 
wobbles on a 26,000-year cycle that causes a phenomenon known as the 
“precession of the equinoxes”. Collectively, these three cycles, which were 
originally discovered by a self-taught university janitor named James 
Croll, are now known as the Milankovich cycles. 

These long-term astronomical changes indicate that changes in C0 2 
concentration cannot have been the chief reason for warming and cooling 
in geological time. 

Figure 1-32 provides additional confirmation that we should be more 
concerned about a continuation of the multi-million-year downward trend 
in temperature, rather than fretting over the welcome warmth over the last 
150 years. 


Figure 1-32: 3.5 million years of declining temperature 

(Lisiecki 2005, modified from Rohde, Global Warming Art) 

Figure 1-33 shows 65 million years of temperature data from oxygen 
isotope records of deep ocean sediment cores. For the bulk of this time, 
Earth was so warm that there was no ice at either pole. Only in the 
relatively recent past has there been any ice at the northern pole. Based on 
this data, we are living within the coldest period in the last 65 million years 
(Robinson 2012). 

You will hear from the proponents of catastrophic warming that our 
temperatures are unusual and unprecedented. They are absolutely right: we 
are living in times that are unusually cold! 


Figure 1-33: For 65 million years, the weather was warmer than today. 






60 50 40 30 20 10 0 

Millions of Years Ago 




historically low 



(Zachos 2001, modified from Rohde, Global Warming Art) 

Figure 1-34, showing more than 4 billion years’ temperature data as 
adapted from Scotese (2002), reveals that the Earth is now in one of the 
coldest periods in its history. No geological period has been as cold as our 
current geologic period, the Quaternary, for at least 250 million years. 

Temperature variations of more than 10°C (18°F) in either direction 
have been common. Viewed in the context of millions of years of Earth 
history, our recent increase of 0.8°C (1.4°F) appears minuscule. It barely 
registers as a blip on the chart. 


Figure 1-34: Four billion years of temperature data 

The inconvenient facts continue to come at a rapid pace based on this long¬ 
term data: 

Inconvenient Fact 23 

We are living in one of the coldest periods in all of Earth’s history. 

Inconvenient Fact 24 

Earth has not had a geologic period this cold in 250 million years. 

Inconvenient Fact 25 

The only thing constant about temperatures over 600 million years 
is that they have been constantly changing. 

(This is a recurring Inconvenient Fact.) 

Inconvenient Fact 26 

For most of Earth’s history, it was about 10°C (18°F) warmer than 


Our review of these four billion years of data shows that the Earth 
usually has been either very warm or very cold, oscillating between very 
warm “hothouse” conditions and much colder “icehouse” or “snowball 
Earth” conditions. During hothouse periods, high temperatures prevail and 
ice is rare. During icehouse periods such as the present, the Earth cycles 
between long periods of glaciation and shorter interglacial periods of 
somewhat warmer temperatures, but with extensive ice at both poles. The 
current “icehouse” phase has lasted 3.5 million years. Fortunately for 
mankind, we are currently in a blessedly warm interglacial period. For that, 
we should be thankful. 

Figure 1-35: Icehouse to hothouse fluctuations 

Million years before present 

(Modified from Scotese 2002) 

Climate Models: Accurate, Inaccurate or Useless? 

The data don’t matter. We ’re not basing our recommendations [for 
reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re 
basing them upon the climate models. 

— Chris Folland, U.K. 
Meteorological Office 

Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to 
see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something 


— David Frame, climate modeler, 
Oxford University 

A recent paper by Bjorn Lomborg, an economist, estimated that the cost of 
measures to forestall global warming would be $1.5 trillion per year. What 
are the expected results from this expenditure? 

According to Lomborg’s calculations using the MAGICC simulator, by 
2100 (on the optimistic assumption that every nation on Earth adhered to 
its climate commitments) temperatures will have been reduced in his best 
case by 0.17°C (0.31°F). That is less than half of a degree Fahrenheit, or 
$42 trillion for each reduction of one-tenth of a degree Fahrenheit in global 
temperature. Methinks that might not be a very good investment. 

Why are we planning to spend this outrageous amount of money that 
might be used instead to help lift people out of generational poverty? It is 
based on mathematically complicated climate models that predict a 
significant rise in future temperatures, accompanied with an imagined host 
of climate hobgoblins. As we shall see in the chapters on the many myths 
of climate apocalypse, none of these predicted doomsday events are 
evident today. If we are to base our policy decisions on predictive models, 
we should find out if the models are actually able to accurately forecast 
future temperatures. 

A detailed examination by John Christy, a distinguished climatologist 
at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and Alabama State 
Climatologist, provides a stark assessment of the validity (or non-validity) 
of the models that are used in support of imagined apocalypse. His 
testimony in February 2016 to the U.S. House Committee on Science, 
Space & Technology included remarkable charts that document just how 
much the models overestimate temperatures. 

The red line in Fig. 1-36 shows the average of 102 climate model runs 
completed by Christy and his team at the University of Alabama in 
Huntsville using the models on which IPCC itself relies. Also shown on 
the chart are the actual, observed temperatures. The models exaggerate 
warming, on average, two and a half times the actual temperature (or 
three times over in the climate-crucial tropics). 


Inconvenient Fact 27 

IPCC models have overstated warming up to three times too much. 

Supporting Christy’s findings, Patrick Michaels, Director for the Study 
of Science at the Cato Institute, studied a suite of 108 climate model runs 
dating back to 1984 and used in the 2013 IPCC compendium. He found 
that the models predicted a warming rate of 2.6°C (4.7°F) per century 
versus 1.7°C (3.1°F) in the real world. That is a big difference. 

Figure 1-36: Global warming predicted by models compared with real-world 




> 0.6 







a 0.2 


- 0.2 

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 

(modified from Christy 2016) 

We are relying on complex computer programs, using an array of 
complicated equations “tweaked” by the scientists who built them to arrive 
at a forecast temperature some 100 years into the future. We cannot 
confidently forecast temperature merely 10 days in the future from now, 
but are asked to base climate policies and risk trillions of dollars on models 
that have failed and failed again the test of prediction versus observation. 

Applied to the climate, a very slight error in the boundary 
conditions (for example, the movement of a butterfly’s wing) would 


be escalated by the equations, making a long term forecast 

— Dr. Edward Lorenz: father of 
chaos theory on the use of current 
climate models 

In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we 
are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and 
therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is 
not possible. 

— IPCC (2001, § 

Winter’s Conning — Is Another Ice Age on its Way? 

We are now more than 10,000 years into our current interglacial warm 
period, and these warm periods typically last 10,000 - 15,000 years. We 
see from Figure 1-37 that temperatures have been in a more than 3,500- 
year decline, and that the peak temperature of each of the last three warm 
periods was less than that of the period that preceded it. Might this data be 
telling us to get ready for the onset of true glaciation? The author of 
reconstructed histories of temperature from an Antarctic core concluded: 
“The Holocene [our present inter-glacial period], which has already lasted 
11,000 years, is, by far, the longest stable warm period recorded in 
Antarctica during the past 420,000 years” (Petit 1999). You may want to 
consider buying an extra set of mittens or, better yet, some property in 
Costa Rica. 

An arrival of the next ice age would be a horrific catastrophe for 
human civilization. If the most recent glacial advances are an indicator of 
what we may see in the future (Figure 1-38), prospects for humanity in 
much of the northern hemisphere are bleak. Large portions of North 
America and Europe will be covered in many hundreds or thousands of 
feet of ice. Colder temperatures will cause massive crop failures and 
famine, and mass migration from cold to warm would be inevitable. 


Figure 1-37: 3,500 years of falling temperature 

Figure 1-38: Icy problems ahead for more than 120 million in North America 

It would take only a few years of global crop failure from cold weather 


to cause tens of millions of deaths worldwide. In North America alone, ice 
would eventually cover areas that are now home to 85 million people in 
the United States and another 35 million in Canada. Nearly all of Canada 
and most of the Scandinavian countries might eventually need to be 
abandoned to the ice. 

Would it not be ironic if we spent trillions of dollars on C0 2 mitigation 
only to realize in the not too distant future that we should have been doing 
the opposite? 

As we shall see in the next section, history tells us that each warming 
period over the last several thousand years ended very badly with the 
subsequent cooling, usually with widespread loss of life and a decline in 
the human condition. 

It is somewhat ironic that our contribution of greenhouse gases to 

the atmosphere may actually be helping to delay the next ice age 

from starting! 

— United States Geological Survey 

Climate and Culture: Very Good and Very Bad 

Human advancement, from the cave-dwelling mammoth hunter during the 
last ice age to the modern millennial using a smart-phone app while riding 
in a self-driving Audi, happens in fits and starts. Nearly all great advances 
occurred during warm periods. Conversely, during cold periods, the human 
condition declined. 

Before climate science became politicized, warm periods were referred 
to by scientists as “climate optima” because, for almost all species on 
Earth, warmer is better than colder. 

During the 100,000 years of the most recent Ice Age, human 
civilization barely advanced. Our ancestors relied on a subsistence culture 
of hunting and gathering, using what was available in their immediate area. 
Limited advances were made in flint-knapping or cave-painting, but 
civilization barely advanced. A little over 10,000 years ago, all that 
changed. The growing warmth at the end of the ice age enabled humanity 
to prosper and advance. Domestication of animals and the birth of 


agriculture led to an explosion of population and the creation of the first 

The most dramatic advances in civilization took place during the last 
four warm periods—including our own (Figure 1-39). The advancement of 
science, technology and the arts have been directly linked to warmer 
weather. The warming, which made possible an abundance of food, freed 
the population from its preoccupation with daily survival to do other 
things. It led to cultural development, something impossible during the 
cold periods. 

The recurring theme of civilization’s relationship with climate provides 
the context for our next Inconvenient Fact: 

Inconvenient Fact 28 

For human advancement, warmer is better than colder. 

The Minoan Warm Period (1,500 - 1,200 BC) coincided with what is 
known as the Bronze Age. In this period, humanity saw great early 
advancements such as the invention of the wheel, writing, bronze-smelting, 
and wine-making. Mountain passes became accessible and storms abated, 
allowing trade throughout Europe and the Mediterranean. Great cities 
arose. The first great European and Egyptian civilizations arose early in 
this period, including the Mycenaean culture in Greece, and the first great 
Egyptian dynasties, among those, the reign of the Pharaoh Akhenaten. 


Figure 1-39: 4,000 years of temperature-driven cultural advances and retreats 


(Source data: Alley 2004; 'current temperature Box 2009) 

As we saw earlier, scientific measurements from ice and sediment 
cores indicate that the Minoan Warm Period was much hotter than today. 
This Inconvenient Fact is supported by historical documentation such the 
growing of millet as far north as Scandinavia—an activity that occurs 
today only in tropical or subtropical regions. 

Minoan prosperity was followed by the significantly lower 
temperatures and the consequent decline in the human condition known to 
climatologists as the “Vandal Minimum” and in Greek history as the 
“Greek Dark Ages.” During the Vandal Minimum, mere survival was the 
prevailing endeavor. Crop failures led to undernourishment and population 
loss. The cold period persisted from 1,200 - 250 BC, but things went from 
bad to worse around 800 BC when temperatures plunged even lower and a 
new round of depopulation occurred across Europe. This time is known as 
the “Hallstatt Disaster” (Behringer 2007). 

The Roman Warm Period, also known as the “Roman Optimum,” 
(-250 BC to 450 AD) witnessed a beneficial rise in temperature and 
ushered in the explosion of civilization known as the Iron Age. This period 
saw tremendous growth in mathematics, philosophy, the arts and 


agriculture. Expansion of societies across Europe and Asia occurred, 
including the apex of the Roman Empire and the first of the great Chinese 
empires (Han Dynasty). 

Multiple lines of scientific study drawing evidence from sources such 
as sediments, ice cores and pollen from around the world have documented 
that the Roman Warm Period was not only hotter than today, but 
significantly so. Voluminous historical records confirm the warmth as 
well, as does the presence of olive trees and vineyards much farther to the 
north than can presently be grown. Olives grew as far north as the Rhine 
Valley of Germany, and citrus trees in the north of England near Hadrian’s 

The rise in civilization during the Roman Warm Period was followed 
by a devastating cold era (~450 to 950 AD), which ushered in one of the 
bleakest times in modern history: the Dark Ages. This era was 
characterized by famine, the Black Plague and a great decline in the 
population of Europe. The cold and its associated maladies devastated the 
cities, reducing much of Europe to a largely rural-agricultural existence. 
Survival again took precedence over the advancement of civilization. 


This time of cold coincided with the decline and fall of the two major 
empires of the preceding warm period—the Roman and Han Empires. 
While it may not be entirely accurate to blame climate for the decline of 
both of these and other lesser civilizations, the inability of rulers to feed 
their subjects led to tremendous internal strife, including uprisings and 
political turmoil. 

The Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 AD) ushered in the great 
awakening of the “High Middle Ages.” The associated positive 
environmental conditions are often called the “Little Climatic Optimum.” 
This period of warmth saw an intellectual renaissance, the establishment of 
universities, the building of great castles and cathedrals, settlements on 
Iceland and Greenland and the signing of the Magna Carta. Charles Doren, 
the historian, called it “ of the most optimistic, prosperous and 
progressive periods in European history” (Moore 1996). 


Recall that Dr. Mann and the IPCC dispute even the existence of the 
Medieval Warm Period (MWP). To admit its existence would be to cast 
doubt on their contention that we are living in an unusually warm time. 
Prior to the Mann hockey stick, the warmth of the MWP was undisputed, 
backed up by extensive historical documentation of tree lines, agriculture, 
insects, glaciers and pollen, all supporting the thesis of the MWP being 
warmer than today. 

Documentation of the Medieval Warm Period is voluminous and 
includes evidence of citrus fruits and vineyards located much farther north 
than at present and burial sites of Vikings still lying in permafrost in 
Greenland. A superb collection of historical and scientific studies that 
bolster the notion of a much warmer MWP can be found at the website 
CO 2 Science. 0 rg run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and 
Global Change. 


Near the end of the MWP, those enjoying the benefits of the warmth 
little realized that there would soon be more than half a millennium of 
cold, misery, and death. 

Bad things happen during cold periods. No period in history 
demonstrates this fact more than the period that followed the Medieval 
Warm Period—the Little Ice Age. From about 1250 - 1850, the cold 
brought severe hardship primarily in northern latitudes. The combination 
of bitterly cold winters and cool, wet summers led to crop failure, famine 
and severe population decline. The worst of the cold occurred during the 
deep freeze from 1670 - 1715, a period of extreme cold known as the 
Maunder Minimum. 

During the Little Ice Age, the Baltic Sea froze over and shipping to 
Iceland and Greenland became impossible for long periods. The Vikings 
abandoned Greenland in about 1350, and the population of Iceland was 
halved. The Black Death (1348) and the Great Famine (1315 - 1321) 
occurred early in this period. 

And what a wonder! Some knights who were sitting on a 
magnificently outfitted horse gave the horse and their weapons 
away for cheap wine; and they did so because they were so terribly 

— A German chronicler of 1315 
(Jordan 1996) 

In Norse mythology there is reference to a Fimbulwinter —a three-year 
winter with no intervening summer. This is thought to reference extreme 
cold periods that occurred early in the Little Ice. Age. Temperatures in 
England were so low that the Thames River often froze solid. The last time 
the Thames froze was in 1814. The North Atlantic fishing industry was 
devastated by the demise of the cod population. Recall also the cold 
suffered by General Washington’s troops during the winter at Valley 

The beginning of the end of the Little Ice Age occurred with a rapid 
warming from 1695 - 1735 in Central England at a rate equivalent to >4 
degrees Celsius per century. That warming, which occurred naturally and 
which we cannot have caused, continues to this day, though at a gentler 
pace. No 40-year period since then has seen so great a rate of warming. 


Most researchers determine the end of the Little Ice Age to be around 
1850, but, as we have seen, it could just as easily be assigned a date 100 
years or more earlier, long before any human C0 2 could have been an 

Civilization at the end of the Little Ice Age had progressed little since 
the time of the High Middle Ages. It was mostly agricultural. The horse 
was the primary means of transport. Communication was by word of 
mouth or by letter. 

Yet, in less than 150 years we have progressed to a level of 
advancement that could not have been imagined only 50 years ago, all 
during rising temperatures and increasing carbon dioxide levels. Author 
W. Cleon Skousen called this rapid advancement the “5,000 Year Leap,” 
where 5,000 years of advances in communication, transportation, energy, 
and exploration, and a doubling of the average length of human life, were 
condensed into less than 200 years. A myriad of factors were responsible, 
but it is certainly not clear that they would have occurred had we still been 
mired in the frigid temperatures of the Little Ice Age. 

We should be thankful that we are the beneficiaries of the warmer 
weather. It allows us to tinker, to invent, and to dream, without the daily 
worries of finding our next meal. 

There is, perhaps, a 97% consensus among historians that, contrary to 
what Dr. Michael Mann and the IPCC contend, the Little Ice Age actually 
occurred and that the Roman, Medieval and Minoan Warming Periods 
were warmer than today. Hundreds of historic accounts and thousands of 
scientific papers confirm this Inconvenient Fact. 

Perhaps it is time that Dr. Mann and his fellow climate travelers were 
labeled “history deniers.” 


Contrary to what the promoters of climate doom would have us believe, 
extensive historic and scientific studies document that the temperature 
increase over the last one hundred or so years is neither unusual nor 
unprecedented. We have also seen that, rather than a pending climate 
apocalypse, the modern warming should be viewed as a welcome respite 
from the troubles and cold of the previous centuries and one that is 


remarkably similar to many previous such trends in our current interglacial 

One of the primary complaints of those agitating for a reduction in C0 2 
emissions is that the weather has become warmer since the Industrial 
Revolution. Although it goes unstated, climate alarmists apparently believe 
that the ideal temperature for today would be that of the time before the 
beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That would put us squarely in the 
middle of the temperatures of the Little Ice Age. History does not support 
any such belief. 

Cold, death and pestilence is what history tells us accompanies lower 
temperatures. Is that what the scientists, politicians and environmental 
alarmists agitating for less C0 2 want? Do they really want to return to the 
temperatures of the Little Ice Age, the Dark Ages or the Greek Dark Ages? 
We have seen how poorly our civilization fared during those cold periods. 
A return to lower temperatures likely would result in a decimation of the 
human population. But then, isn’t that what many of the climate zealots 
really want? 

The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but 

a good thing. 

— Christopher Manes, a writer for 
Earth First! Journal 

Inconvenient Fact 29 

A return to the temperature at the beginning of the Industrial 
Revolution would lead to famine and death. 

* Virtually all climate science deals with temperatures in degrees Celsius. 
The conversion to Fahrenheit will be made and listed in red where deemed 
necessary for our American readers. 


II. Apocalypse? No! 
Apocalypse Myths 


Weather Gone Wild 

Rains that are almost biblical, heat waves that don’t end, 

tornadoes that strike in savage swarms — there’s been a change in 

the weather lately. 

What’s going on? 

— National Geographic 2011 

My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell the lion about it. 

— Chicken Little 

In the early days of the climate alarmist campaign, the focus was nearly 
entirely on effects directly related to a warming climate: heat waves, 
droughts, rising sea-levels and the like. In the mid-2000s, with the 
realization that “global warming” had mysteriously stopped or at least 
paused, a new group of climate hobgoblins was conjured up under the term 
climate change. Now anything at all unusual or harmful could be 
demonized and linked to our sins of emission. And demonize them they 

A whole host of climate myths have been advanced to further the 
notion that humankind is not only changing the climate, but that those 
changes are devastating the planet and dragging down the human condition 
with it. Supposed climate calamities linked to man’s actions run the gamut, 
from forest fires to the spread of poison ivy. The linkage has one goal: to 
instill fear so that we will welcome the imposition of radical, costly 
regulations on our lives. 

It certainly seems like extreme events are more frequent. With 
assistance from a 24-hour news cycle, Twitter, Google updates and cell 
phone alerts, we are barraged with weather events that formerly merited 
coverage only in local news outlets. Now a tornado that touches down in 
Valdosta, Georgia, may be publicized worldwide instead of only in the 
Daily Times. 


One can hardly blame the media for coverage, as most of these events 
make for fantastic live shots of forests in flame and homes ablaze. Mild 
weather just does not make for good television. 

Even many of those reading this book who are skeptical of a human 
l ink to a warming planet believe that climate catastrophes are increasing in 
number and intensity. And why would they not? It is regularly reported as 
a fact that “extreme” weather is more prevalent, along with wide-eyed 
predictions of even more such ruinous events, owing to a warming world. 

The following chapters provide information on many of the primary 
climate myths, most of which you will find completely at odds with 
portrayals in the media, and possibly with your own understanding. We 
will look first at the most pervasive myth, that of a scientific consensus on 
climate change. We then “dive deep” into the myths of a climate 

You will find that, rather than living in a world careening toward 
planetary doom because of our excesses, just the opposite is the case. 
Humanity and the Earth are prospering wildly, not in spite of rising 
temperatures and increasing carbon dioxide, but because of them. 

The Earth is becoming greener and experiencing fewer extreme 
weather events. Lengthening growing seasons, more moisture in the soil, 
and C0 2 fertilization are increasing crop yields. With these increases, we 
are feeding our growing populations. 

Enjoy the inconvenient truth and sleep well: the world as we know it is 
not ending because of your actions. 

Apocalypse? No! 

“97% Consensus” — What Consensus? 

We have heard that 97% of scientists agree on human-driven climate 
change. You may also have heard that those who don’t buy into the 
climate-apocalypse mantra are Luddite science-deniers. So count me in as 
a Luddite, but a whole lot more than 3% of scientists are skeptical of the 
party line on climate. A whole lot more. 

In most conversations that I have with people who learn that I am a 
scientist working on climate change, the first question that comes up is, 
“So you believe in climate change, then?” My answer? “Yes, of course I 


do: it has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.” As you know 
by now, the question is not, “Is climate change happening?” The real 
question is, “Is climate change now driven primarily by human actions?” 

There are some scientific truths that are quantifiable and easily proven, 
and with which, I am confident, at least 97% of scientists agree. Here are 

Carbon dioxide concentration has been increasing in recent years. 

Temperatures, as measured by thermometers and satellites, have 

been generally increasing over the last 150 years. 

What is impossible to quantify is the actual percentage of warming that 
is attributable to increased anthropogenic (human-caused) C0 2 . There is no 
scientific evidence or method that can determine how much of the 
warming we’ve had since 1900 was directly caused by us. 

We know that temperature has varied greatly over the millennia. We 
also know that for virtually all of that time, global warming and cooling 
were driven entirely by natural forces, which did not cease to operate at the 
beginning of the Industrial Revolution. 

The claim that most modern warming is attributable to human activities 
is scientifically insupportable. The truth is that we do not know. We need 
to be able to separate what we do know from that which is only conjecture. 

What is the basis for the “97% consensus” notion? Is it true? 

Hint: You can’t spell consensus without “con.” 

If, indeed, 97% of all scientists truly believed that human activities 
were causing the moderate warming that we have seen in the last 150 
years, it would be reasonable for one to consider this when determining 
what to believe. One would be wrong, however. 

Science, unlike religion, is not a belief system. Scientists, just like 
anyone else, will say that they believe things (whether they believe them or 
not) for social convenience, political expediency or financial profit. For 
this and other good reasons, science is not founded upon the beliefs of 
scientists. It is a disciplined method of inquiry, by which the scientist 
applies pre-existing theory to observation and measurement, so as to 
develop or to reject a theory, so that he can unravel as clearly and as 
certainly as possible the distinction between what the Greek philosopher 
Anaximander called “that which is and that which is not.” 


Abu Ali ibn al-Haytham, the natural philosopher of 1 l th -century Iraq 
who founded the scientific method in the East, once wrote: 

The seeker after truth [his beautiful description of the scientist] 
does not place his faith in any mere consensus, however venerable 
or widespread. Instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to 
inquiry, inspection and investigation. The road to the truth is long 
and hard, but that is the road we must follow. 

The long and hard road to scientific truth cannot be followed by the 
trivial expedient of a mere head-count among those who make their livings 
from government funding. Therefore, the mere fact that climate activists 
find themselves so often appealing to an imagined and (as we shall see) 
imaginary “consensus” is a red flag. They are far less sure of the supposed 
scientific truths to which they cling than they would like us to believe. 
“Consensus,” here, is a crutch for lame science. 

What, then, is the origin of the “97% consensus” notion? Is it backed 
up with research and data? 

The earliest attempt to document a “consensus” on climate change was 
a 2004 paper cited by A1 Gore in his allegedly non-fiction book, An 
Inconvenient Truth. (Gore attended natural science class at Harvard, but 
got a D grade for it.) The author of the cited paper, Naomi Oreskes, 
asserted that 75% of nearly 1,000 papers she had reviewed on the question 
of climate change agreed with the “consensus” proposition favored by the 
IPCC: “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to 
have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” None, 
she maintained, dissented from this line of reasoning. 

The Oreskes paper came to the attention of Klaus-Martin Schulte, an 
eminent London surgeon, who had become concerned with the adverse 
health effects of his patients from their belief in apocalyptic global 

Professor Schulte decided to update Oreskes’ work. However, he found 
that only 45% of several hundred papers endorsed the “consensus” 
position. He concluded: “There appears to be little basis in the peer- 
reviewed scientific literature for the degree of alarm on the issue of climate 
change which is being expressed in the media and by politicians, now 
carried over into the medical world and experienced by patients.” 

The primary paper that is often trotted out in support of the notion of 


“97% consensus” was written by John Cook and his merry band of climate 
extremists. Published in 2013, it is the most widely referenced work on the 
subject of climate consensus and has been downloaded more than 600,000 

Cook runs a climate website that is a smorgasbord of alarmist rhetoric, 
specializing in attacks—often personal and spiteful in tone—on all who 
have proven effective in leading others to stray from the dogma of 
impending climate doom. 

The project was self-described as “a ‘citizen science’ project by 
volunteers contributing to the website.” The team consisted of 12 climate 
activists who did not leave their climate prejudices at home. These 
volunteers, many of whom had no training in the sciences, said they had 
“reviewed” abstracts from 11,944 peer-reviewed papers related to climate 
change or global warming, published over the 21 years 1991 - 2011, to 
assess the extent to which they supported the “consensus view” on climate 
change. As Cook’s paper said, 

We analysed a large sample of the scientific literature on global 
CC [climate change], published over a 21-year period, in order to 
determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is 
very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global 
warming, or AGW). ... 

The paper concluded, 

Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW [anthropogenic 
global warming], 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. ... 
Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming 
percentage (97.2%o based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract 
ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW. 

The paper asserted—falsely, as it turned out—that 97% of the papers 
the reviewers examined had explicitly endorsed the opinion that humans 
are causing the majority of the warming of the last 150 years. 

When one looks at the data, one finds that 7,930 of the papers took no 
position at all on the subject and were arbitrarily excluded from the count 
on this ground. If we simply add back all of the papers reviewed, the 97% 
claimed by Cook and his coauthors falls to 32.6%. 


A closer look at the paper reveals that the so-called “97%” included 
three categories of endorsement of human-caused climate change (Table 
II-1). Only the first category amounted to an explicit statement that 
humans are the primary cause of recent warming. The second and third 
categories would include most skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic 
warming, including me, who accept that increasing C0 2 is probably 
causing some, probably small, amount of warming; an amount that is 
likely rendered insignificant by natural causes of warmer weather. 

Table 11-1: Expanding the ‘consensus’ broadly 

Level of Endorsement 


(1) Explicit endorsement 
with quantification 

Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent 
global warming 

(2) Explicit endorsement 
without quantification 

Explicitly states that humans are causing global warming or 
refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a 
known fact 

(3) Implicit endorsement 

Implies humans are causing glooal warming; e g. research 
assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without 
explicitly stating humans are the cause 

Cook (2013) 

Michael Bastasch wrote in 2017 that lumping skeptics with true 
climate change devotees was “like claiming there’s a consensus on 
legalized abortion by lumping pro-abortion activists in with those who 
oppose all abortion except in cases of incest and rape. That ‘consensus’ 
would be a meaningless talking point.” 

Agnotology is defined as “the study of how ignorance arises via 
circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.” This is how David 
Legates and his co-authors (2015) describe the Cook paper and similar 
attempts falsely to promote the notion of broad scientific consensus 
surrounding the subject of a looming, man-made, climate apocalypse. 

They reviewed the actual papers used by Cook and found that only 
0.3% of the 11,944 abstracts and 1.6%o of the smaller sample that excluded 
those papers expressing no opinion endorsed man-made global warming 
as they defined it. Remarkably, they found that Cook and his assistants had 
themselves marked only 64 papers—or 0.5% of the 11,944 they said they 


had reviewed—as explicitly stating that recent warming was mostly man¬ 
made. Yet they stated, both in the paper itself and subsequently, that they 
had found a “97% consensus” explicitly stating that recent warming was 
mostly man-made. 

Agnotology has the strong potential for misuse whereby a 
‘manufactured’ consensus view can be used to stifle discussion, 
debate, and critical thinking. 

— Legates 2013 

It appears that Cook and his co-authors manipulated the data to present 
an altogether untrue narrative of overwhelming support for catastrophic 
human-caused warming. 

Note that the official “consensus” position—supported though it was 
by just 0.3% of the 11,944 papers reviewed—says nothing more than 
recent warming was mostly man-made. Even if that were the case—and 
the overwhelming majority of scientists take no view on that question, for 
it is beyond our present knowledge to answer—it would not indicate that 
global warming is dangerous. 

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will 
eventually come to believe it. 

— Joseph Goebbels 

From the information we have just reviewed, the percentage of 
scientists who agree with the notion of man-made catastrophic global 
warming is significantly less than advertised. Several unbiased attempts 
have been made to assess what the actual number might be. One of the 
largest petitions concerning climate change was the Oregon Petition signed 
by more than 31,000 American scientists, including 9,029 holding PhDs, 
disputing the notion of anthropogenic climate alarmism (Figure II-1). 


Figure 11-1: The global warming petition that 31,000 scientists signed 

(Edward Teller’s signature at 

More recently, in 2016, George Mason University (Maibach 2016) 
surveyed more than 4,000 members of the American Meteorological 
Society and found that 33% believed that climate change was not 
occurring, was at most half man-made, was mostly natural, or they did not 
know. Significantly, only 18% believed that a large amount—or all—of 
additional climate change could be averted. 

Inconvenient Fact 30 

Only 0.3% of published scientists stated in their papers that recent 
warming was mostly man-made 

Science does not advance through consensus, and the claim of 
consensus has no place in any rational scientific debate. We ask: What 
does the data tell us? What does it mean? Can we reproduce the results? If 
climate alarmists need to resort to an obviously flawed consensus opinion, 
rather than argue the merits of the science, haven’t they already conceded 
that their argument cannot be won through open debate? 

Inconvenient Fact 31 

Science is not consensus and consensus is not science 

Cook’s 97% nonsensus [sic] paper shows that the climate 


community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research 
and bad behavior. If you want to believe that climate researchers 
are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent 
case in point. 

— Professor Richard Tol 

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with 
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the 
contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, 
which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by 
reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. 
What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in 
history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. 

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it 
isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. 

— Michael Crichton 

Water, Water Everywhere — How Droughts are 

The impacts of climate change are expected to increase the 
frequency, intensity, and duration of droughts in many regions, and 
persistent drought could force foundational changes in the way 
communities use and live on the land. 

— The National Drought Resilience 

Prolonged dry spells mean more than just scorched lawns. Drought 
conditions jeopardize access to clean drinking water, fuel out-of- 
control wildfires, and result in dust storms, extreme heat events, 
and flash flooding in the States. 

— Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) 

One of the most-repeated hobgoblins of the global warming crowd is 
drought—a simple, understandable and frightening story, already familiar 


to hundreds of millions worldwide. According to the National Integrated 
Drought Information System, in the United States alone an eighth of the 
country and 80 million people were drought-stricken in early 2017 (Figure 

n- 2 ). 

Figure 11-2: United States drought monitor 

(National Integrated Drought Information System) 

Within the United States, only hurricanes are costlier than droughts, 
and only then thanks to Hurricane Katrina (Ross and Lott 2003). Droughts 
have been and are easily demonized. They not only lead to local wildfires 
and water shortages, but also to wider effects on food and commodity 
prices. Are those who warn us of increasingly harmful effects of drought, 
like the NRDC, correct? Are these projections backed up with scientific 

It is easy to persuade the public that global warming is causing 
droughts. After all, warmer temperatures should lead to drier conditions, 
then to drought. It seems obvious. Many climate scientists and government 
agencies have declared that droughts are becoming more frequent and 
more severe, owing to human-caused climate change. 

Concerns were heightened by the intense drought that gripped the 


western United States from 1999 - 2016. As much as half of the 
contiguous United States saw moderate to severe drought, and 10 of 11 
states suffered from declines in water storage. It was a rare news report 
that failed to include a quote from a climatologist, blaming the dry 
conditions on human-induced climate change. 

Once again, we have heard the predictions and conclusions of the 
climate “experts,” but what does the data tell us? 

Figure II-3 is a map showing the areas of the planet with increased 
vegetation density (greening) versus those areas which show vegetation 
loss (browning). This reveals that C0 2 fertilization and warming 
temperatures have been greening the Earth, rather than turning it to dust, as 
the prophets of doom tell us (de Jong 2011). 

Figure 11-3: Thanks to our changing climate, much of the world is greening. 

Two telling charts about drought are provided by government agencies. 
The first, from the EPA, shows the Palmer drought-severity index (Figure 
II-4). The second is a NOAA chart (2017a) of the areas of the United 
States over the last 120 years that indicate whether the year was wetter or 
dryer than average (Figure II-5). Both of these long-term data sets show 
absolutely nothing to indicate more frequent or more intense droughts. 


Figure 11-4: Palmer drought-severity index of mean drought conditions, 1895 - 

(EPA 2016a) 

Figure II-6 shows the percentage of the world in various stages of 
drought. The data reveals that droughts across the world have been 
declining since the early 1980s. 

A review of the most severe and persistent droughts of the 20th 
Century identified 30 of these severe droughts, including the Dust Bowl of 
the American Midwest in the 30s and the African Sahel drought of the 60s 
(Narisma 2007). Curiously, nearly 75% of the droughts occurred before 
1960, and well before the bulk of the surge in atmospheric C0 2 . According 
to this and other studies, rather than seeing a predicted increase in 
droughts, we are witnessing a significant decline in droughts, while both 
temperature and carbon dioxide increase (Fig. II-7). 

Inconvenient Fact 32 

More C0 2 => fewer droughts 

Inconvenient Fact 33 

Higher temperature => fewer droughts 


Figure 11-5: Percentage of United States very wet vs. very dry, 1895 - 2017 

(NOAA 2017a) 

Figure 11-6: Percentage of the globe in drought, June 1983 to June 2012 

£ 60% 

o 50% 

c 40% 

| 30% 

© 20 % 

o 10% 



Extreme drought 

Severe drought 
Exceptional drought 

ihtarea for 30 years 

II || II 

(modified from Hao 2014) 

38 -38 


Figure 11-7: Global frequency of severe, persistent droughts, vs. temperature 
change and C0 2 emissions 




7 droughts 



droughts ( || 

.i 1 



12 ^ 

10 | 

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 


(Source data: drought: Narisma 2007, temperature: HadCrut4, CO 2 : Boden 2016) 

When we take a look at drought in the much longer term, that is, 
drought in the western United States going back more than 1,000 years, we 
find data that are very inconvenient to the official position of pending 
climate catastrophe (Cook 2007). The reconstructions from the study 
reveal the occurrence of past ‘megadroughts’ of unprecedented severity 
and duration (Figure II-8), ones that have never been experienced by 
modern societies in North America. 

There is a scientific reason why one might expect fewer droughts. The 
dual effects of rising temperatures and increasing C0 2 are working 
together to increase the soil moisture around much of the world. 

As we learned in the section on greenhouse warming, as the 
atmosphere warms, it is capable of carrying more water vapor. The 
additional water vapor tends to precipitate as rain. This increasing 
precipitation, owing to a warming world, is having its effect on once 
drought-stricken areas, such as the Sahel in the Western Sahara. The 
increased water vapor is directly leading to more rainfall, and huge 
increases in vegetation in formerly desert and semi-desert areas (Seaquist 
2009). According to Martin Claussen of the Max Planck Institute, “The 
water-holding capacity of the air is the main driving force.” It was reported 
that some 300,000 square kilometers of Saharan desert had become green 


over the previous 30 years, so much so that nomadic tribes were returning 
to places where they had not settled in living memory. 

After visiting the Western Sahara in 2008, Stefan Kropelin of the 
University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit stated: “Now you have 
people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for 
hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles 
coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back. The trend has 
continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable (Owen 2009).” 

Figure 11-8: Long-term changes in aridity in western North America 

You will recall from our section on C0 2 , that increasing levels of the 
gas mean that plants’ pores don’t need to be open as long, reducing 
evaporation and increasing soil moisture. Increased resistance to drought 
because of soil moisture is a major benefit of increasing C0 2 
concentrations. Inconvenient facts like these contradict the apocalyptic 
narrative of a world inexorably moving toward desertification. 

The evidence is overwhelming: the only link between our changing 
climate and drought appears to be that there are fewer of these events, and 
they are less intense. This is an incredibly positive benefit for humankind 
and the ecosystems of the Earth. Yet the promoters of climate doom 
continue to assert just the opposite. 


Forest Fires — Fanning the Flames of Needless 

The effects of global warming on temperature, precipitation levels, 
and soil moisture are turning many of our forests into kindling 
during wildfire season. 

— Union of Concerned Scientists 

No matter how hard we try, the fires are going to keep getting 
bigger, and the reason is really clear. We should be getting ready 
for bigger fire years than those familiar to previous generations. 

— Park Williams, Columbia 
University researcher 

Like many apocalyptic climate myths, there is wide acceptance among 
the media, “climate experts,” and the general populace that forest fires are 
accelerating in frequency and size, owing to man-made climate change. As 
with drought, desertification, and heat waves, a link between warmer 
weather and more forest fires seems to be only common sense. Without 
specialist knowledge, one might logically surmise that warmer, and thus 
drier, weather means more fires. 

The news media pumps up its ratings by broadcasting spectacular 
video footage and photographs of forest fires, particularly when they are 
fatal. During any large fire, the media proffers opinions of climate 
“experts” that man-made global warming is to blame for the loss of life 
and property. 

So seldom is the truth revealed in the news media that many readers 
may well have assumed until now that supposed increasing frequency and 
ferocity of forest fires are caused by man-made global warming. 

This is really a window into what global warming looks like. It 
looks like heat. It looks like dryness. It looks like this kind of 

— Dr. Michael Oppenheimer 


Many scientific studies forecast more forest fires on the basis of the 
same climate models that we have already seen to be fatally flawed in their 
predictive capabilities. Fortunately, we have data available to study the 
frequency of forest fires in both the recent and the distant past. The real- 
world data indicates that “experts” like Dr. Oppenheimer are, in fact, 
incredibly wrong on this subject. 

We will look at the actual data that tells a story quite unlike the fake 
news peddled by the media and alarmist organizations. The National 
Interagency Fire Center provides extensive information on forest fires in 
the United States (NIFC 2017, Fig. II-9). The data clearly show a declining 
number of fires over the last 30 years. This mere fact is certainly at odds 
with everything we have heard to date on the subject. 

Figure 11-9: More C0 2 , but fewer forest fires 


250 000 


pnn (inn 



a r 

1 ^ 

100 000 

50 000 





400 : 

390 , 









<j ■§ 

c C0 
o o 

O c 
O => 

1 E 





1962 1971 1980 1989 1998 2007 



(Source data: Fires: NIFC 2017; CO 2 : Tans 2017) 

Inconvenient Fact 34 

Forest fires across the northern hemisphere are decreasing. 

A study by scientists with the Canadian Forest Service compared 
temperatures and C0 2 concentration versus frequency of forest fires over 


the last 150 years in North America and northern Europe (Flannigan 1998). 
Their results contradict the predictions of the promulgators of doom. The 
authors demonstrated a link between more C0 2 in the air and fewer fires 
worldwide. They attributed the decline in forest fires to the combined 
effect of C0 2 fertilization and rising temperature, leading to greater soil 
moisture. Their summary is worth reading: 

Despite increasing temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age 
(ca. 1850), wildfire frequency has decreased as shown by many 
field studies from North America and Europe. We believe that 
global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire 

— Flannigan (1998) 

A study in 2014 found that acreages burned worldwide in the 20 th and 
early 21 st centuries had declined significantly (Yang 2014, Figure II- 10). 
The authors attributed the decline in high-latitude forest fires, particularly 
in most of North America and Europe, primarily to rising C0 2 
concentrations. Just as was the case with declining trends in droughts, 
additional soil moisture, thanks to C0 2 fertilization, has probably been 
suppressing fires since significant amounts of C0 2 began being added to 
the atmosphere in the 20 th Century. 

Figure 11-10:Global burned area by decade 

0.65 o 

0.45 £ 

0.25 o 

0.05 g 
-0.15 « 

-0.55 •” 

1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 

(Source data: Burned area: Yang 2014; temperature: HadCRUT4 2017) 

The media and alarmist groups tell one story: the data tell quite 


another. Rather than an increase in the frequency and intensity of forest 
fires, as we have heard for many years, there are fewer forest fires, thanks 
to more C0 2 in the air and higher water vapor, linked to increasing 
temperatures. This is a very inconvenient fact for the anti-fossil-fuel 
groups that ruthlessly exploit the tragedies of others to raise funds for their 
causes. In the future, it will be very difficult to appeal for money on the 
basis of forest fires when it becomes known that more C0 2 means fewer 
forest fires. 

Inconvenient Fact 35 

More C0 2 » C0 2 fertilization » more soil moisture » faster tree 
growth » fewer forest fires 

Famine: The Best Solution is More C0 2 and 
Increasing Temperature 

In the long list of potential problems from global warming, the 
risks to world agriculture stand out as among the most important. 

— William R. Cline, Peterson Inst, 
for Int. Econ and Center for 
Global Development 

Climate change is the biggest threat to our chances of winning the 
fight against hunger. 

— Winnie Byanyima, Executive 
Director of Oxfam International 

A widely referenced paper in The Lancet predicted more than a half¬ 
million extra deaths by 2050, on account of famines caused by climate 
change. The author suggested that “climate change mitigation could 
prevent many climate-related deaths” and that negative dietary changes 
could “exceed other climate-related health impacts” (Springmann 2016). 
The implication is that, unless we embrace a low-carbon game plan now, 
we shall be directly responsible for deaths around the world. I certainly do 
not want to bear that burden. I’m sure you don’t either. So let’s take a look 
at the data. 


Bear in mind that this prediction, and numerous other studies 
predicting famines, are based on exaggerated temperature models, and an 
assumed link to increasing droughts and heat waves that might cut food 
production. Yet, in the past, warmer weather has always meant more crops, 
while cooler times have led to famines and mass depopulations. 

We shall see in this section that more C0 2 in the air and rising 
temperatures are already leading to plenty, not famine. By every important 
metric, global food production is growing—and growing not in spite of our 
changing climate but, in part, because of it. Warmer weather lengthens 
growing seasons and increases water vapor. C0 2 fertilization makes trees 
and plants more resistant to drought and fosters their growth, along with 
increasing the soil moisture around the world. 

Inconvenient Fact 36 

More C0 2 in the atmosphere means more food for everyone. 

Take another look at Figure 1-15 on Page 20. It shows that increasing 
C0 2 in the air to twice its pre-industrial concentration will benefit the 45 
crops that constitute 95% of world food production. Based on this and 
hundreds of other research studies, we can expect C0 2 fertilization to boost 
food production significantly. The biomass of the top ten food crops would 
grow by more than a third if C0 2 concentration were to reach 600 parts per 
million. Idso (2013) has estimated that the C0 2 -driven increase in the yield 
of the 45 crops in Figure 1-15 in the 50 years 1961 - 2011 was worth $3 

Inconvenient Fact 37 

The Earth is becoming greener, not turning into desert. 

As we saw in Figure II-3, research has revealed that, over the last 25 
years, the Earth has been growing greener, not turning into a desert (de 
Jong 2013). Confirmation of this comes from a recent study using satellite 
data from NASA showing increasing leaf cover over the last 35 years 
(Figure II-l 1). According to Zhu (2016) 25% to 50% of the Earth’s surface 
has shown significant greening, while only 4% of the globe is browning. 


Importantly, the authors attribute the bulk of the greening to C0 2 
fertilization effect. 

Inconvenient Fact 38 

Growing seasons are lengthening. 

Warming temperatures are benefiting agricultural food production 
through lengthening growing seasons, which allow additional plantings 
(see Figure 11-12). Killer frosts end earlier in the spring and arrive later in 
the autumn. 

Inconvenient Fact 39 

More C0 2 and warmer weather mean more world food production. 

The world’s remarkable ability to increase food production year after 
year is attributable to mechanization, agricultural innovation, C0 2 
fertilization and warmer weather. World grain production and amount 
harvested per acre (Figures 11-13 & 11-14) show that crop and food 
production has steadily increased, with only positive effects from our 
changing climate. 


Figure 11-11 :How green is my planet? C0 2 is making it greener. 

Change in leaf area, 1982-2015 

< -30% < -15% -5% +5% +15% +25% +35% > +50% 

(modified from Zhu 2016, permission R Myeni) 

Figure ll-12:Trend in length of growing season (1981 -2006) 

1 . .I <<u 


+2 Longer 

Shorter .1 

Trend in length of growing season 

(modified from de Jong 2011) 

Figure 11-13:World grain production, C0 2 concentration and temperature, 1961 

(Source data: grain: UN FAO 2017, CO 2 : Tans 2017, 
temperature: HadCRUT4 2017) 

Figure 11-14: Bushels of grain per acre harvested worldwide, 1936/37 -2016/17 

1926/27 1936/37 1946/47 195&57 1966/67 1976/77 1986/87 1996/97 2006/07 2016/17 

11 Global C0 2 emissions 

10 (billion metric tons) 


(Acres planted and grain: USDA 2017, C0 2 : Boden 2016) 

According to the USDA, com is the largest component of the global 
grain trade, and the United States is the world’s largest producer. Com is 
thus one of the country’s most important agricultural products, processed 


as sweet corn, cornmeal, tortillas, high-fructose corn syrup and, thankfully, 
bourbon. It also is the primary feedstock to fatten our cattle, chickens and 
hogs. Again, in Figure 11-15, we see significant increases year after year, 
rather than the negative impacts predicted by the doommongers. 

Figure 11-15:C0 2 emissions go up, up goes U.S. corn production 

(Source data: Corn: UMiss 2011; CO 2 : Boden 2016) 

Corn production in the U.S. presents a conundrum for environmental 
activists. On the one hand, there is significant fear-mongering over 
predicted declines in food productivity based on questionable climate 
models. On the other hand, the enemies of fossil fuels promote ethanol 
production to replace our oil-based transportation fuels. Every acre of corn 
diverted to ethanol production is an acre that is no longer feeding the 
world’s hungry. In 2008, Herr Jean Ziegler, the United Nations’ 
Rapporteur for the Right to Food, claimed that “to divert land from food 
production to biofuels is a crime against humanity.” 

The share of corn production devoted to ethanol production in the U.S. 
has sky-rocketed from just a few percent in the late 1990s to 39% recently. 
Meanwhile, the government mandated that 42% of the crop be dedicated to 
ethanol in 2016. Driven by unneeded environmentalist demands, the U.S. 


is increasingly moving toward fueling its cars with a food product at the 
expense of nutrition for the world’s poorest. 

Figure 11-16:11.S. corn feeds cars, not people, 1980/81 - 2016/17 


0 > 010 > 0 ) 0)00000 


(modified from USDA 2017) 

Summary — Food Abundance 

If more C0 2 and warmer weather were going to cause a decline in world¬ 
wide food production, should there not have been some recognizable 
negative effects by now, after 150 years? Contrary to predictions, all the 
signs point to robust food production, which will increase far into the 
foreseeable future. We can be grateful for a combination of rising 
temperatures and increasing carbon dioxide—unless, that is, we return to 
the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age. 

Heat and Life, Cold and Death 

Heat waves could be an average of 10°F hotter by the end of the 

— Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) 2017 


Global warming is bringing more frequent and severe heat waves, 
and the result will be serious for vulnerable populations. That 
means air pollution in urban areas could get worse, bringing 
increased risk of heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks. 
Children, the elderly, poor, and people of color are especially 
vulnerable to these effects. 

— Dr. Amanda Staudt, National 
Wildlife Federation climate 

The assessment that man-made global warming will lead to massive 
increases in heat waves and heat-related deaths is stated as fact by every 
governmental climate agency and group promoting a link between 
increasing C0 2 and the warming of the last century. The National Climate 
Assessment (2014) said, “The number of heat waves has been increasing in 
recent years.” The reliably unreliable U.S. Global Change Research 
Program makes the following assertions (USGCRP 2009): 

Increases in morbidity and mortality from extreme heat are very 

Temperatures are rising and the probability of severe heat waves is 

Rare and extreme heat waves will become much more common; 

Heat is already the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the 
United States. 

Are these assertions correct? What does the science tell us? In this 
chapter, we shall review the historical records and the inconvenient 
scientific facts about extreme heat waves, giving you enough data to make 
a reasonable judgment for yourself. 

Inconvenient Fact 40 

EPA: Heat waves are not becoming more frequent. 

We shall start with the EPA’s own data (2016b) which show no 
increase in heat waves in recent years. Instead, there was a remarkable 


spike in extreme heat waves in the 1930s, long before we could have 
affected the climate to any significant degree (Figure 11-17). 

Figure ll-17:Nature, not C0 2 emissions, drives heatwaves 


(Heatwave: EPA 2016b, CO 2 : Boden 2016) 

John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville is the State 
Climatologist and provides useful charts of high temperatures (Christy 
2015). Figure 11-18 shows the percentage of days that exceeded 100°F at 
almost 1,000 NOAA stations across the United States. Note that the lower 
48 states of the U.S. have seen an 80-year decline in extreme heat. 

Inconvenient Fact 41 

Extreme heat events are declining. 

There has been a distinct, long-term decrease from the excessively hot 
temperatures of the 1930s. Figure 11-19, a summary of 130 years of daily 
maximum summer temperatures in Alabama, confirms a decline in 
extreme heat waves in the southeastern U.S. since the 19 th Century. 

Inconvenient Fact 42 

Cold kills far more people than heat every year. 


Climate extremists predict that heat waves and high temperatures 
related to global warming will kill increasingly more people worldwide. 
As usual, the inconvenient facts are otherwise. If the merchants of doom 
were right, the warming over the last 150 years should have been reflected 
in more deaths caused by heat waves. 

(Heat: modified from Christy 2015, Source C0 2 : Boden 2016) 


Figure 11-19: In Alabama peak daily temperature fell from 1883-2014. 

(modified from Christy 2015) 

The inconvenient fact is that cold kills considerably more people than 
heat. It is, by far, the biggest weather-related killer worldwide. Warmer 
weather would mean far fewer premature temperature-related deaths. 

A study of temperature-associated mortality in the U.K. and Australia 
found that cold-related deaths in the U.K. and Australia accounted for 61 
and 33 deaths per million, respectively, while heat-related deaths were 
only three and two per million (Vardoulakis 2014). Cold kills more than 15 
times as many people in these countries as heat. 

In the largest study to date on deaths attributable to heat or cold, 
Gasparrini (2015) and a large team of collaborators from around the world 
examined more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 
2012. Warm countries included Thailand and Brazil; temperate countries 
included Australia; cold countries included Sweden. The aim was to 
determine the number of deaths attributable to either heat or cold. 

The study revealed that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as 
heat. Worse, one in 15 deaths, from all causes, was attributable to cold. 
Only one death in 250 was attributable to heat. In every country examined, 
cold-related deaths greatly outnumbered deaths from heat (Fig. 11-20). 


Figure 11-20:Cold weather, not hot weather, is the real killer. 

Note that, in Figure 11-20, by far the largest number of temperature- 
related deaths comes from moderate cold. Of course, moderate cold occurs 
far more frequently than extreme cold: but these figures show, and show 
clearly, that even a modest decrease in temperature is more likely to kill, 
while even a large increase is not. 

Inconvenient Fact 43 

Warmer weather means many fewer temperature-related deaths. 

Inconvenient Fact 44 

Warmer weather prevents millions of premature deaths each year. 

In the United States, summer heat-related deaths have declined 
dramatically (Fig. 11-21) in the last half of the 20 th century (Kalkstein 2011 
and Davis 2003). 


Figure 11-21 :Warmer weather, yet fewer deaths from warmer weather 

(Kalkstein 2011 and Davis 2003; modified from Michaels 2012) 

Between 1979 and 2006, United States annual death rates from heat 
declined by 10%, while deaths from cold fell by a dramatic 37% (Goklany 
2009). In fact, extreme-weather deaths and death rates have been tumbling 
since the 1920s, notwithstanding the modest global warming since then 
(Figure 11-22). 

“Excess winter mortality” is the statisticians’ description of premature 
deaths from cold. The British Office for National Statistics studied such 
deaths for recent winters in England and Wales and found that 24,300 
excess winter deaths had occurred during the winter of 2015 - 16. 
Importantly, the British statisticians found a strong and persistent decline 
in excess winter mortality over the past 60 years. Only half as many die 
before their time in winter today as did in the 1950s (Fig. 11-23). 

People are dying of cold in Britain today not so much because the 
weather is cold as because their homes are cold. Following a “green”- 
driven tripling of energy prices over the past two decades, in order to 
subsidize otherwise uneconomic windmills, many of those who died did so 
because they could no longer afford to heat their homes. It is safe to say 
that far more people have died worldwide as a result of no doubt well- 
intentioned, but misguided, “save-the-planef ’ policies, than have died as a 
result of modest global warming. 

A study by the European Union predicts that a future reduction in 


deaths from cold will significantly outweigh any increase in deaths from 
heat (Ciscar 2009). By that year, the author predicts, 162,000 additional 
premature deaths per year from heat will be outweighed by the predicted 
256,000 deaths per year from cold that would be prevented (Fig. 11-24). In 
Europe alone, the study predicts that close to 100,000 people a year would 
be spared an untimely death—thanks to global warming. That being the 
case, we should all welcome the increasing warmth that will lengthen the 
global average life span. 

Disingenuous statements such as those issued from the U.S. Global 
Change Research Program that increased mortality from extreme heat was 
“very likely,” and that “some reduction in the risk of death related to 
extreme cold is expected.” The statistics tell us that temperature-related 
deaths are decreasing around the world and that the decline in cold-linked 
mortality is particularly dramatic. And that—except in the world of climate 
extre mi sm—is a very good thing. 

Figure 11-22:11.S. annual extreme-weather deaths and death rates tumble. 

(modified from Goklany 2009) 


Figure 11-23:Good news—cold is killing fewer Britons 

Figure ll-24:The more the global warming, the fewer the predicted deaths from 

Increase in deaths from heat in Europe by 2080 


2080s 2.5°C 

2080s 3.9°C 

■ 26400 


- 1 


1 161700 

2080s 4.1 °C 

2080s 5.4°C 


0 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000 140.000 160.000 180.000 

Decrease in deaths from cold in Europe by 2080 

-101100 1 


2080s 2.5°C 


2080s 3.9°C 


2080s 4.1 °C 

2080s 5.4°C 

- 1 - 


-300,000 -250.000 -200,000 -150.000 -100,000 -50,000 0 

(modified from Ciscar 2009) 


Inconvenient Fact 45 

More C0 2 and warmth mean shorter, less intense heat waves. 

We have seen in the chapters on food shortages, forest fires, and 
drought, that the combination of higher C0 2 concentration and warmer 
weather is boosting soil moisture worldwide, because of increased water 
vapor and the C0 2 fertilization of plants. Studies of European heat waves 
from 1970 - 2000 (Fischer 2007a), and especially of the devastating 
European heat wave of 2003 (Fischer 2007b), found that decreased soil 
moisture was the primary cause. They estimated that the warming might 
have been 40% less with normal soil moisture. The conclusion: if the soil 
had not been unusually dry, “summer 2003 would still have been warm, 
but it would not have been such a devastating event as it turned out to be.” 


Figure ll-25:As temperature dropped, U.K. deaths increased—and vice versa. 

Mean daily deaths ^ 5-year average daily deaths 

— Mean monthly temperature 5-year average temperature 


12 P 


10 3 

8 | 



August October December February April June 

2015 2015 2015 2016 2016 2016 

(U.K. Office for National Statistics 2017) 

Summary — A Warm Climate Is Good for Us 

The facts starkly challenge the contention that warmer weather kills. The 
truth is that warmer weather has already cut temperature-related deaths, 
and will continue to do so, directly raising life expectancies around the 
world. The facts and the data demonstrate exactly the opposite of what the 
prognosticators of climate doom predict. If this important element of the 
alarmist campaign is so easily debunked by so many scientific studies, 
shouldn’t one also look with a critical eye at all the other hobgoblins of 

In a Whirl About Tornadoes 

The recent trend of severe and lethal tornadoes are (sic) part of a 


global trend toward more storms. 

— Paul Epstein, in The Atlantic, 

July 8,2011 

It is irresponsible not to mention climate change in the context of 
these extreme tornadoes. 

— Dr. Kevin Trenberth, US 
National Center for Atmospheric 

The amount of’s like three times the highest amount 
ever before, right? Something weird is happening with all of these 
natural catastrophes. 

— Rosie O’Donnell on Rosie Radio, 
May 26, 2011 

Tornadoes are particularly feared in the United States because they kill and 
injure more U.S. citizens than any other type of storm. While many other 
countries are spared the twisters’ wrath, the United States is the world 
leader in the number of tornadoes per year—1,250—with Canada trailing 
in a distant second place, with just 100. Other countries, most of them in 
mid-latitudes, have tornadoes as well (Fig. 11-26). 


Figure ll-26:Tornadoes world distribution 

(NOAA 2017a) 

The unique geography of the U.S. makes it tornado-prone. The Rocky 
Mountains and the Gulf of Mexico provide the key ingredients for 
formation of the severe thunderstorms that spawn tornadoes: warm, moist 
air close to the ground; cool, dry air aloft; and horizontal winds that travel 
faster aloft than near the surface. 

NOAA (2017b) says early historic records of tornadoes are unreliable: 
“One of the main difficulties with tornado records is that a tornado, or 
evidence of a tornado, must have been observed. Unlike rainfall or 
temperature, which may be measured by a fixed instrument, tornadoes are 
short-lived and very unpredictable. A tornado in a largely unoccupied 
region is not likely to be documented. Many significant tornadoes may not 
have made it into the historical record, since Tornado Alley was very 
sparsely populated during the early 20th Century.” 

With increasing population, Doppler radar detection and better 
reporting, the number of tornadoes identified has significantly increased in 
recent years. Because of this, NOAA recommends only using the strongest 
tornadoes as a measure of pre-radar numbers. Large and violent tornadoes 
might well have been identified even in days before better reporting was in 
place. Figure 11-30 shows a tornado’s rank. 


Inconvenient Fact 46 

The number of tornadoes is decreasing. 

Inconvenient Fact 47 

The number of tornadoes in 2016 was the lowest on record. 

The chart below of these very strong tornadoes (>F 3.0) shows 
declining numbers of tornadoes over the last 60 years (Fig. 11-27). 

The year 2016 ended with the lowest tornado count that NOAA (2016) 
has ever recorded (Figure 11-28). How can that be? Isn’t climate change 
supposed to be increasing these storms? The answer—not that you will 
hear it in the biased news media—is No. Outside the tropics (and probably 
within the tropics, too), storminess of all kinds is expected to decrease 
gently with warmer weather, because it is differentials between 
temperatures that cause storms, and warming reduces those differentials. 

Greater improvements in detection and early warning are the primary 
reason that deaths per million due to tornadoes in the U.S. have been in a 
long-term decline (Figure 11-29), but a decline in the number of the storms 
surely cannot hurt. 


Figure ll-27:Severe tornadoes (F 3+) are less frequent than 50 years ago. 



























(Tornadoes NOAA 2017b, C0 2 : Boden 2016) 

Figure 11-28:2016—Lowest number of tornadoes according to NOAA 


Global C0 2 emissions (billion metric tons) 

Figure 11-29:11.S. tornado deaths per million population 

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 


(Modified from Doswell 1999) 

Inconvenient Fact 48 

Deaths from tornadoes are falling. 

That the science, the facts and the data show absolutely no correlation 
between tornadoes and rising temperatures over the last half-century and 
more has not stopped climate extremists from linking nearly every tornado 
catastrophe to global warming. Rosie O’Donnell, hardly a scientist, can be 
forgiven for making uninformed comments linking tornadoes to climate 
change. The scientific community has no such excuse. 


Figure ll-30:The Fujita tornado scale 








Fastest % mile 





208 - 260 


Fastest 3-seoond 
gust (mph) 







(NOAA 2017c) 

Hurricanes — Politicizing Tragedy 

The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed 
Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global 

— Ross Gelbspan, Boston Globe op¬ 
ed, August 30, 2005 

It’s not a pretty picture, hurricanes could become more intense as 
the Earth warms. They are frightening, destructive and extremely 
costly, and we expect future hurricanes to leave an even greater 
trail of damage in their wake. 

— Michael Oppenheimer, Professor 
of Geosciences, Princeton 

The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, 
as well as the frequency of the strongest hurricanes, have all 
increased since the early 1980s. Hurricane intensity and rainfall 
are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm. 

— National Climate Assessment, 

Alarmists have been predicting an increase in the frequency, intensity and 
duration of hurricanes since they first started linking humankind’s C0 2 
emissions to global warming. We are guaranteed that every hurricane or 
tropical depression that makes landfall will be accompanied by extensive 
media coverage, with claims of a link between the latest storm tragedies 
and global warming. The theory behind the connection between warming 


and hurricane activity is superficially plausible. Global warming raises 
ocean surface temperatures, fueling tropical cyclones and hurricanes. That 
seems to be a perfectly reasonable prediction. Yet the facts say otherwise. 

Promoters of the notion that warming worsens hurricanes, including 
the authors of the National Climate Assessment of 2014, often refer to a 
chart (Figure 11-31) of the North Atlantic hurricane power-dissipation 
index. This index is an aggregate of factors that measure total hurricane 
power over a hurricane season. They concluded that there was a “strong 
upward trend” in the Atlantic region. But they were not telling the whole 

Patrick Michaels points out in his book, Lukewarming (2015), how odd 
it was that the dataset only began in 1970 and, still more curiously, ended 
in 2009. This was despite the fact there was long-term data available 
before 1970, and four additional seasons with no land-falling storms after 
2009. Michaels provides a longer-term evaluation of the power-dissipation 
index from Dr. Ryan Maue, this time showing the full dataset, including 
the recent years with no land-falling Atlantic hurricanes. The “upward 
trend” of the Climate Assessment was, in reality, no uptrend at all (Fig. II- 

Michaels concluded: “Datasets should be viewed in their entirety, not 

To make things even more inconvenient for the alarmists, the authors 
of the study which provided the data for Figure 11-31 wrote: “We were not 
able to corroborate the presence of upward trends in hurricane intensity 
over the past two decades in any basin other than the Atlantic. Since the 
Atlantic basin accounts for less than 15% of global hurricane activity, this 
result poses a challenge to hypotheses that directly relate globally 
increasing tropical SST (surface sea temperature) to increases in long-term 
mean global hurricane intensity” (Kossin 2007). 

The authors of the National Climate Assessment not only used cherry- 
picked data: they misstated the conclusions reached by the authors of the 

Inconvenient Fact 49 

There has been no increase in frequency of hurricanes in recent 


Figure 11-31:Cherry-picked trends in North Atlantic hurricane power 


(USGCRP 2014, adapted from Kossin 2007) 

Figure ll-32:The true long-term trend in North Atlantic hurricanes PDI 


(Maue 2016, modified from Michaels 2015) 

Below are two charts showing global hurricane and tropical storm data 
compiled by Dr. Ryan Maue (Figures 11-33 and 11-34). The charts show no 


rising trend. In fact, a compelling argument could be made for a decline 
over the last 30 years or more. 

Figure 11-33: Frequency of global hurricanes and major hurricanes 

(Maue 2017) 

Figure 11-34:Global tropical storm and hurricane frequency is falling. 

> 120 


* 100 

S" i' 

« « 80 

c o> 

O c 

j. Tropical storms 

l*—— _ Downtrend 1970 - ?ni7 

yr— - Downtrend 1970 - \oi7 ^ 

Updated to May 31, 2017 
Dr. Ryan Maue 

1970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006 2012 2 


(Modified from Maue 2017) 

Inconvenient Fact 50 

We have seen 250 years of declining hurricane frequency. 


As further confirmation that there is no upward trend in hurricane 
frequency, intensity or duration, researchers at the National University of 
Mexico reviewed data going back to the year 1749 and found that “from 
1749 to 2012 the linear trend in the number of hurricanes is decreasing” 
(Rojo-Garibaldi 2016, Figure 11-35). 

So what are promoters of warm-ology to do when they just can’t get 
the data to cooperate with their preconceived notions? The answer is to 
fund more studies. In this case, researchers from Florida State conducted a 
study that used complex climate models (recall how well those have 
worked out) to predict that hurricanes will become fewer but more intense 
(Kang 2015). Climate Armageddon proponents have latched onto this idea 
of “fewer but bigger” storms to continue to promote fear. 

Christopher Landsea, a meteorologist for the National Hurricane 
Center, has quantified what an increase in the intensity of major 
hurricanes, driven by global-warming, may mean (Landsea 2011). His 
work indicates that the warming over the last several decades translates 
into an increase in intensity of about 1%. For a Category 5 hurricane like 
Katrina, the wind speed would increase by 1 to 2 mph. He wrote: “The 1-2 
mph change currently in the peak winds of strong hurricanes due to 
manmade global warming is so tiny that it is not measurable by our aircraft 
and satellite technologies available today, which are only accurate to about 
10 mph (~15 kph) for major hurricanes.” 

In other words, the estimated increase in hurricane strength is too small 
to be significant. 

Inconvenient Fact 51 

No significant increase in hurricane intensity due to warming 


Figure 11-35:Hurricane frequency fell for more than 250 years. 

(Rojo 2016) 

Polar Bears are Doing Just Fine, Thank You 

Climate change is drowning and starving polar bears. If 
greenhouse gas-fueled climate change keeps melting their sea-ice 
habitat, an Arctic apocalypse will wipe them out in a century—and 
they’ll disappear from the United States by 2050. 

— Center for Biological Diversity 

Our analyses highlight the potential for large reductions in the 
global polar-bear population if sea-ice loss continues, which is 
forecast by climate models and other studies 
— IPCC (2013) 

In May 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear, 
Ursus maritimus, as a threatened species under the Endangered Species 
Act, predicting that bear populations would decline by two-thirds as the 
sea ice they rely on for hunting continued to shr ink . This conclusion was 
not based on evidence that the numbers of these iconic animals were 
declining—the opposite was the case—but they were put on the list based 
on predicted future dangers, using the flawed climate models discussed in 
previous chapters. 


The Fish and Wildlife Service’s thesis is that: 

- sea ice is shrinking because of global warming. 

- polar bears need sea ice to hunt seals. 

- cuddly polar bears will starve or drown unless we change our evil 


) A, 

Patrick Michaels, the Cato Institute’s senior fellow, disputed the 
science behind the decision, saying, “This marks the first instance of a 
species being listed based upon a computer model of future climate.” 

Again, we will look at the science, the facts and data, to get to the truth 
regarding our great, white, furry friends. As we shall see, the data are 
entirely inconvenient for environmentalist groups trying to raise donations 
on the pretext that polar bears are on the brink of extinction. 

Far from becoming extinct polar bear populations are doing well, in 

Polar-bear populations are increasing; 

Polar bears in regions with the greatest ice loss are thriving; 

Polar bears survived a previous much warmer period. 

It is difficult and dangerous to assess the population of polar bears 
accurately. Their home turf is mostly barren, snowy, windswept terrain 
that is inhospitable to humans, whose census-taking bears do not welcome. 


Also, humans apparently taste a lot like seal, or enough so that we are on 
the bear menu. 

Despite these challenges, the most recent population studies actually 
indicate that polar bear populations are rising fast and are at a 50-year high 
(Fig. 11-36). A recent report by Susan Crockford, a noted polar bear expert, 
reveals that the current population of 22,000 to 31,000 is the highest 
estimate in more than 50 years. 

Figure ll-36:There are almost four times as many polar bears as in 1960. 

§ 30,000 
■5 25,000 

O 20,000 

ro 15,000 

■2 10,000 

£ 5,000 

I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 


(Modified from Crockford 2015) 

Inconvenient Fact 52 

The population of polar bears is growing. 

Inconvenient Fact 53 

There are more polar bears now than we’ve had for 50 years. 

A recent review of Canadian polar bears found stable or increasing 
numbers in 12 of 13 sub-populations (York 2016, Figure 11-37). The 
researchers concluded: “We do not find support for the perspective that 
polar bears within or shared with Canada are currently in any sort of 
climate crisis.” That is quite a bit different than anything you have likely 
read or heard about concerning this issue. 


Figure ll-37:Twelve of 13 regional polar bear populations are thriving. 

(York 2016) 

Inconvenient Fact 54 

Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing. 

Extraordinarily inconvenient recent results of polar bear research do 
not support the narrative that decreasing sea ice is detrimental to the bears’ 
health (Rode 2014). In fact, they appear to be quite fat and happy in areas 
of high ice loss. Rode’s study compared bears in the Chukchi and Beaufort 
Seas, bounding Alaska and Russia (Fig. 11-38). The Chukchi Sea had lost 
twice as much ice as the Beaufort Sea. The researchers had expected that 
the Chukchi Sea bears would have suffered, yet they found just the 

By every metric, the authors found that bears in the region that had the 
most ice loss were healthier and fatter than in the area with less ice loss. 
The females were heavier by almost 70 pounds (30 kg), and males by 110 
pounds (50 kg). See Figure 11-39, below. 

Chukchi sows had larger litters with higher survival rates, and 
yearlings’ weight exceeded their counterparts in the Beaufort Sea by nearly 
50 pounds (25 kg). The researchers concluded that less ice led to “higher 


ecosystem productivity,” that is, more critters to eat. 

Amusingly, the researchers—having not found the result that they, or 
their funding sources had expected—ended their report by wondering 
about the difficulty of “messaging this complexity to the public.” 

We didn’t have to wait very long to see how this combination of less 
ice and healthier bears would be conveyed by the promoters of climate 
doom to the public: A June 2017 study by the USGS and the University of 
Wyoming (Durner 2017) concluded that bears in areas of high ice loss 
would need to consume more calories through increased foraging and 
would need to kill 2% to 6% more seals to make up for it. 

Figure 11-38: Polar bears are thriving in high ice-loss areas. 

The shallow Chukchi Sea 
has lost twice as much ice as 
the deep Beaufort Sea, yet 
polar bears thrive there. 

-Arctic Ocean 



(Map adapted from Wikimaps) 


Figure 11-39: Male polar bear weight comparison of the two populations 

(modified from Rode 2013) 

AP’s reporting on this latest study confirmed that man’s consumption 
of fossil fuels almost certainly will lead to the bears’ extinction. Not until 
800 words into the AP story, near the end, do we get this hidden gem: 
“Bears in the Chukchi Sea, off Alaska’s northwest coast, had to walk 
farther and burn more calories than south Beaufort bears but are in better 
shape because more food is available .” 

So it appears that the “simple bear necessities” may not actually 
include ice. 

Indeed, it will be a lot harder to raise money for the World Wildlife 
Fund once it gets out that warmer temperatures mean more polar bears. 
The bears, after all, originated on land and migrated to the ice about 
150,000 years ago. Like us, they are warm-blooded creatures. Like us, they 
prefer warmer to colder weather. 

Finally, we have seen from the chapter on temperatures that several 
climate optima (that is, warming periods) in our current interglacial period 
had much higher temperatures than we enjoy today, and there was 
probably a lot less polar sea ice then than now. In fact, the last interglacial 
period, more than 120,000 years ago, was 8°C (14°F) warmer than today, 
with no polar ice at all (Dahl-Jensen 2013). Yet the polar bear survived. 


The bears will survive in our own time, too, as long as hunting—the 
only real threat to them—is carefully controlled. So rest easy, polar bear 
enthusiasts, your great, white friends will do quite nicely in a warming 

Ocean Acidity — Climate pHraud 

Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is 

threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid. 

— James Hansen, Director of the 
Program on Climate Science, 
Columbia University Earth 

Ocean acidification is climate change’s equally evil twin. 

— Jane Lubchenco, former Head of 

Ocean “acidification,” the latest climate hobgoblin to be advanced as a 
result of increasing C0 2 levels, began to be heavily promoted as the “evil 
twin” of global warming when it became clear that the 25-year warming 
trend of the late 20th Century had ended, and a long pause in temperature 
increase had begun. Ocean “acidification” became the fallback pretext for 
the anti-fossil-fuel agenda, just in case its specter of a sizzling Earth 
collapsed under the weight of evidence against it. 

This chapter is somewhat more technical than the others, but the detail 
is necessary if you are to see why the climate extremists are just as wrong 
on ocean chemistry as they are on atmospheric physics. 

Before 2004, very little attention had been focused on ocean 
“acidification,” but that all changed quite suddenly. Howard Browman of 
the Institute of Marine Research did a thorough study and found that, 
though there had been no learned papers on the subject before, from 2006 
to 2015 more than 3,100 papers had appeared (Figure 11-40). He called the 
explosion of research on the topic “unprecedented in marine sciences” and 
reported that nearly all published articles predicted an “acidification” 
calamity, while studies that found no link were difficult to publish. There 
is no surprise here: “fund it and they will find it.” 


So what is ocean “acidification?” Here is a quick refresher on acidity, 
alkalinity and pH. The measurement of acidity or alkalinity, known as pH 
(that is, the proportion of hydrogen ions compared with distilled water), 
ranges from very acidic (pH 0), such as battery acid, to very alkaline (pH 
14), such as lye or drain cleaner (Fig. 11-41). Neutral is pH 7.0. Rainwater 
is quite acidic, at pH 5.4, while seawater is pronouncedly alkaline, at pH 
7.8 to 8.1. 

Alarm over ocean “acidification” is based on the theory that elevated 
atmospheric C0 2 causes more C0 2 to be dissolved into the ocean, 
increasing the concentration of carbonic acid, particularly near the surface, 
and making it impossible for shelled invertebrates (such as crabs or corals) 
to create the calcium carbonate that makes up their shells and 
exoskeletons. A further lowering of pH (increasing acidity), so the 
extremists say, would begin dissolving the shells of existing creatures, 
resulting in an oceanic apocalypse. 

Figure 11-40:Academia on acid: papers about the “acid” ocean, 2001 - 2015 

Papers published 

(Browman 2016) 

The “calcifying organisms”—creatures that make their shells or 
exoskeletons out of calcium carbonate—already are used to very large 
swings in pH on the continental shelves near the mouths of rivers, 


particularly during floods. The rivers that flow into the bays and estuaries 
are often significantly acidified, yet oyster communities thrive in those 
areas. In fact, the federal government acknowledges this with a lower 
allowable limit of 6.5 (that’s acid) for the Clean Water Act. For example, 
the wonderfully delicious oysters from the Chesapeake Bay of the eastern 
U.S. do quite nicely in a bay that commonly approaches 7.0 due to river 
influx, far lower than the most radical predictions of the alarmists. 

Have our oceans been acidic before? Our very earliest oceans, more 
than 2 billion years ago, are thought to have been acidic (Halevy 2017). 
However, since those earliest oceans, the only time that the ocean was 
actually acidic was about 54 million years ago (Zachos 2005). The cause 
for that period of acid oceans was attributed by Zachos to a sudden release 
of methane, rather than an increase in C0 2 (C0 2 levels were -850 ppm at 
that time, much less than the 2,600 ppm average for the Earth’s last 650 
million years). 

The pH of the ocean varies slightly, depending on season, water depth 
and latitude. The pH level trends slightly less alkaline in the tropics, during 
the winter, and at depth. According to many estimates, the oceans’ pH has 
declined slightly (-0.1 pH) since the beginning of the Industrial 

IPCC models predict that ocean alkalinity may decline another 0.3 pH 
by the year 2100. Although this level is unlikely to be reached, even if it 
were true, the ocean would remain firmly alkaline. In fact, since the 
current range of estimates of ocean alkalinity is pH 7.8 - 8.1, the small 
change predicted by the alarmists is barely beyond the estimates of 
alkalinity today. They dare not predict large changes; instead, they pretend 
that the small changes they predict will have large effects. 


Figure 11-41 :pH values of common substances 

Liquid drain cleaner 

Bleach/Oven cleaner 

Ammonia Solution 

Baking Soda (pH- 

Sea water (pH-8) 

Distilled water/blood (pH=7) 

Black coffee (pH=5) 

juice/soda (pH=2.5-3.5) 

Lemon juice/vinegar 

Battery acid (pH=0) 

The prediction of increasing acidity and the doom of the sea is based 
almost entirely on models that use the following reasoning: 

More C0 2 => more carbonic acid => more acidic oceans => seashells 

Modeling studies show that the pH of the oceans would need to drop 
by two full units, or to a pH of 6.0, for carbonate to dissolve at current 
temperatures (Segalstad 2008). Even the most extreme projections of 
decreasing alkalinity do not forecast that the oceans will approach neutral, 
let alone become truly acidic. 

These models can predict pH in the controlled settings of a university 
laboratory, but not so much in the real world. The models do not take into 
account various processes which act to modify or “buffer” any increase in 
carbonic acid. The primary buffering agents are the chemical reactions of 


limestones and other minerals in ocean water. Limestones (CaC03) are 
among the primary rocks exposed on the surface of the Earth and beneath 
her oceans. Their presence guarantees that under modern conditions the 
oceans cannot become acidic—and certainly nowhere near as acidic as the 
rainwater that falls on them daily. 

Carbonic acid reacts to limestones on land and at sea to increase the 
alkalinity, and add calcium to streams and oceans. Other minerals also add 
significant buffering as a backstop to the limestone reactions. According to 
Idso (2014), “they constitute an almost in fini te buffer capacity.” 

Several other important factors act to buffer changes in ocean pH, but 
are not included in the models. For instance, warmer water and increasing 
C0 2 are expected to increase algal photosynthesis, which has been shown 
to increase the alkalinity of the ocean significantly. Some climate 
modelers are all too anxious to include variables which fit their 
preconceived notions, calling them “multiplier effects,” but conveniently 
avoid them when they might disprove their theories. Note that, even with 
the most radical modeling of lower pH, the oceans remain significantly 
alkaline and cannot even approach neutrality at pH 7.0. 

The terminology used is critically important. Climate extremists do not 
talk of a “slight decrease in alkalinity. ” That would not strike fear into the 
gullible hearts of the environmental fringe, for whom environmentalism 
appears to have become a substitute for true religion. Another way that the 
lessening of pH could be described would be to say that the oceans are 
becoming “less caustic.” That, however, would put a positive spin on the 
matter, not at all what the alarmists intend. The term “ocean acidification” 
conveys the notion of a looming oceanic catastrophe, and it is on this basis 
that alarmists promote substantial and needless increases in the cost and 
regulation of energy. 

Before we look at the science which will categorically disprove the 
notion of ocean “acidification,” we should first look at some of the studies 
that peddle the doomsday scenario. 

The most widely referenced chart concerning “acidification” is a 
comparison of the pH and dissolved C0 2 in the area north of Hawaii 
(Figure 11-42). It shows a slight decline in pH and a steady increase of C0 2 
over a period of nearly 30 years. As we shall see in Figure 11-44, pH has 
been rising and falling in 50-year cycles with the last peak of alkalinity 


occurring in the mid-1960s, This 30-year record is just not long enough to 
make confident predictions about long-term trends. 

A controversial and widely cited paper on the subject is Feely (2006), 
showing a graph linking decreasing pH to increasing C0 2 . The graph 
shows “historic” and projected pH from 1850 to 2100, and the chart 
predicts that by 2100 pH levels will be down to 7.9 (which, incidentally, 
would still be quite alkaline). Unfortunately, while the graph is still 
available on the NOAA website (Feeley 2006) neither NOAA nor the 
author would provide permissions to use in this book. 

Figure ll-42:Too pHew data points for linkage 


(NOAA PMEL 2017, adapted from Dore 2009) 

Here is why: 

In 2010 this work earned the author a trip to testify to Congress and a 
Heinz Family Foundation award worth $100,000. The citation said: 
“Ocean acidity is now considered global warming’s ‘evil twin,’ thanks in 
large measure to Dr. Feely’s seminal research on the changing ocean 
chemistry and its impact on marine ecosystems.” 


An enterprising, young PhD candidate at the University of New 
Mexico by the name of Mike Wallace looked closely into the work of 
Feely and his co-authors, finding that the supposedly “historic” data was 
nothing of the sort. Wallace observed that Feeley had only used real-world, 
measured data from 1990 to 2015. He had ignored real-world 
measurements dating back at least a century. 

Feeley’s graph was generated using climate modeling for the pre-1990 
portion of the curve, rather than the actual measurements. When Wallace 
graphed the actual data, the “acidifying” trend produced by the model 

Wallace questioned Feely’s co-author, Sabine, about why real-world 
measurements had been ignored. He was told that, if he continued his line 
of questioning, “You will not last long in your career.” Wallace had this to 
say about these studies that provide the very basis of the ocean 
acidification argument: “In whose professional world is it acceptable to 
omit the majority of the data and also not to disclose the omission to any 
other soul or Congressional body? (Noon 2016)” 

In a true scientific inquiry, real data should always trump models. If 
actual hard data are available, there is no need to forecast—unless your 
objective is to promote the latest hobgoblin of climate alarmism. 

The Historical Record 

Just as we saw when reviewing data on temperature and carbon dioxide, 
the historical record of what has happened in the real world is a signpost to 
the future. The long-term geologic history reveals some very inconvenient 
facts for climate alarmists spreading fear that acidic oceans will dissolve 
sea-shells. Data from the early climate certainly provide no basis for any 
such fear. 

Liu (2009) examined corals in the South China Sea and reconstructed 
the pH history for the last 7,000 years. Figure 11-43 shows the data from 
that study and compares it to the C0 2 history of the same period taken 
from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. First, it is apparent that the current 
pH values and the rate of decrease are neither unprecedented nor unusual. 
In fact, the lowest measured alkalinity was about 6,000 years ago, when 
C0 2 levels were one-third below today’s levels. The behavior of the real- 


world ocean is just the opposite of the behavior predicted by the IPCC and 
the merchants of climate doom. 

Inconvenient Fact 55 

There is no historic correlation between C0 2 and oceanic pH 

Pelejero studied the pH history of a reef in the southwestern Pacific Ocean 
that provided nearly 300 years of pH data (2005). He found large changes 
in pH that varied over 50-year cycles (Figure 11-44). We are nearing the 
end of a 50-year downtrend in pH and, if the cycles continue, we may well 
see an increase in alkalinity, rather than the “acidification” predicted by 
alarmists. The authors noted that there was “no notable trend” toward 
lower boron values (boron is a proxy for pH). Also note that the most 
recent peak in alkalinity, from 1955 to 1970, occurred despite the fact that 
C0 2 emissions had already begun to increase significantly. 

Figure 11-43:7,000 years of ocean pH in the South China Sea, and C0 2 

(Source data: pH: Liu 2009; C0 2 : Barnola 2003) 


Figure 11-44: Reconstructed pH history of SW Pacific reef, 1708 - 1988 


(pH: modified from Pelejero 2005; Source CCL Boden 2016) 

Limestone, one of the most abundant sedimentary rocks on Earth, is 
calcium carbonate, as are the shells and exoskeletons of the creatures 
allegedly threatened by ocean “acidification.” Limestone is precipitated 
from warm ocean waters that are supersaturated with calcium. Break open 
a piece of limestone and you are likely to find many fossils of the 
forerunners of modern creatures, these ancient creatures also needed 
alkaline water to prosper. Therefore, we can use the record of limestone 
deposits to see if acidification took place during periods of high C0 2 

During the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian periods of the early 
Paleozoic era (541 - 416 million years ago), C0 2 usually exceeded 4,000 
ppm, reaching a maximum of nearly 8,000 ppm in the Cambrian Period. 
The latter was ~20 times today’s concentration. When we compare C0 2 
levels to the rock record from the author’s home turf in the Appalachian 
Basin of the eastern United States (Fig. 11-45), we find that most of these 
C0 2 -enriehed periods were dominated by limestone deposition (Fig 11-46). 
Limestone deposition could not have occurred had the oceans been 
“acidified.” Most of the limestone was deposited during the periods of 
highest C0 2 concentration. 

Inconvenient Fact 56 

The oceans did not become acidic even with C0 2 at 15 times 
modern levels. 


Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director of the Global Change 
Institute and Professor of Marine Science at the University of Queensland, 
and an advocate of politically driven science, had this to say concerning 
ocean “acidification”: 

When CO 2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per 

million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans. 

The fossil record unambiguously shows that this statement is false. 
Perhaps the good professor should have walked down the hall and 
discussed his musings with one of the many distinguished geology 
professors at the university before uttering a statement so easily and 
decisively disproved by the fossil record. 

Proponents of ocean acidification focus only on the imagined harmful 
effects on sea-shells and corals from a supposed significant reduction in 
ocean—a decrease that we have seen is not at all likely. They ignore the 
many reputable studies that have identified the benefits of increasing C0 2 
on oceanic plants, algae and animals, all of which would not be here today 
unless they had already long possessed the ability to adapt to far greater 
changes in pH than we are capable of causing. 

The rational observer would ask: 

Why were the oceans not acidified during geological periods when 
the Earth’s atmosphere carried up to 20 times today’s C0 2 

Did the processes which led to the proposed “acidification” really 
only begin with the Industrial Revolution? 


Atmospheric carbon dioxide (ppm) 
Converted from RC0 2 GEOCARB III 

Figure 11-45: Limestone was deposited when the C0 2 concentration was 
extremely high. 

Figure 11-46:Ordovician Black River carbonates laid down when C0 2 was 12 
times today’s concentration 

(PA DCNR2017) 


Summary — Ocean Acidity 

Predictions of the end of the oceans as we know them from “acidification” 
are based entirely on models that assume that oceans possess no 
organisms, rocks or dissolved solids that might moderate or buffer any 
increase in carbonic acid. Based on the fossil record and paleo- 
reconstructions of pH levels, we know that acidification of the oceans did 
not occur in the past even during times with C0 2 levels many multiples of 

Unless entirely new oceanic chemical processes not yet evident in the 
burgeoning scientific literature on ocean “acidification” have mysteriously 
begun to operate at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the oceans 
will not become “acidified.” The prognosticators of climate apocalypse are 
wrong again. 

Sea-Level Rise — King Canute Couldn’t Stop It — 
Nor Can We 

Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea 
levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. 
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco- 
refugees, ’ threatening political chaos. 

— Noel Brown, UN official, June 
30, 1989 

Sea-level rise may be the most feared calamity associated with global 
warming. Because areas that would be affected have large and growing 
populations and include many of the world’s economic centers, significant 
increases in the sea level could be devastating. Media reports of flooded 
cities and coastlines after storms are all too often linked to global warming 
and rising sea levels. Nearly every group spreading climate fear 
prominently features the specter of flooding from rising oceans. 

Media sensationalism is compounded by misrepresentations of 
available science and by an unscientific reliance on computer projections 
rather than on historical data. 

A report for the United Nations’ Environment Program in 2005 


asserted that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010, many of 
them driven out of their coastal homes by sea-level rise (Myers 2005). The 
UN even provided a handy identifier map which included the areas of 
highest risk: low-lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean, and 
commented that “some will disappear completely.” Since their predictions 
have proven so completely incorrect, the map has since been removed 
from their website in order not to thoroughly discredit any of their 
subsequent, similarly outrageous, predictions. 

In 2011, Gavin Atkins of the Asian Correspondent asked, “What 
happened to the climate refugees?” and provided updated population 
numbers for some of the most atrisk island nations which the UN had 
predicted would be under water now: 

Bahamas: the 2010 census showed an increase in population of 
>50,000 persons in 10 years; 

St. Lucia: 5 per cent increase in population 2001 to 2010; 

Seychelles: the number of persons grew by >6,500 from 2002 to 2010; 

Solomon Islands: there were 100,000 more people from 2001 to 2010. 

So rather than citizens fleeing these “at-risk” islands, they appear to be 
thriving quite nicely on islands which are a refuge for those persons 
leaving the cold of northern climes. 

Undeterred by facts or common sense, the UN is now predicting the 
same 50 million climate refugees by the updated timeline of 2020. We 
won’t have to wait long now to see how that prediction turns out. 

Sea Level — Science, Facts and Data 

Over the last six million years of severe icehouse conditions, the primary 
driver of sea-level changes were periodic episodes of glaciation. These 
locked up huge amounts of water—mainly in the northern latitudes— 
drawing down sea levels. During warmer interglacial stages, melting ice 
yielded markedly higher seas. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, 
the peak glaciation of the last ice age about 20,000 years ago produced sea 
levels about 400 feet (140 m) lower than today. Since that point, the 
climate has warmed and glaciers have melted, returning water from the 
land to the oceans. 


Figure 11-47 shows reconstructed sea levels dating back to the latter 
part of our most recent ice age (Waelbroeck 2002). This chart is plotted 
with data on 1,500-year intervals, so it does not capture the detail that later 
figures provide. It does show that the most rapid rise occurred during the 
first 6,000 to 8,000 years of warming, as the climate transitioned from the 
ice age to the interglacial period. Then the rate of rise slowed to a relative 
stability that has endured, more or less, to the present. 

Figure 11-47:20,000-year sea level reconstruction 

Inconvenient Fact 57 

Sea-level increase began >15,000 years ago. 

The sea level actually fell during the cold of the Little Ice Age, but then 
resumed its long-term rise in the late 1700s, in response to the warming 
coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age (Figure 11-48). Acceleration 
of sea-level rise kicked in during the mid-1850s and has remained nearly 
constant since that time. Bear in mind that the re-initiation and acceleration 
of the rise began at times when human-created C0 2 could not have had any 
significant effect on temperatures. 


Between 1901 and 2010, the rise amounted to about 7.5 inches (190 
mm) or 0.07 inches (1.8 mm) per year (Houston 2011). The seas began to 
rise long before we began our post-World War II increase in C0 2 
emissions. This natural sea-level rise will continue whether or not we 
reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. 

Since the sea level has been rising for more than 15,000 years, the 
question to ask is not, “Is it rising?” but, “Is it rising faster!” Most climate 
models predict faster sea-level rise, but tide gauges, which are the most 
reliable long-term measurement of rise show no detectable acceleration 
since we began adding appreciable amounts of C0 2 to the air in the mid- 
20th Century. 

Satellite altimetry—measuring the sea level by satellites—was 
introduced in 1993 and sea-level rise measured from them shows an 
acceleration of rise. There is evidence, however, that the raw satellite data 
was adjusted so as to produce the desired acceleration (Momer, 2011); and 
the inter-calibration errors between the successive generations of satellites 
exceed the total sea-level rise the satellites purport to measure. The bottom 
line? The combination of short time frame, calibration errors and apparent 
manipulation of the satellite data provide too many questions for us to use 
this information with any confidence. 

Inconvenient Fact 58 

Recent sea-level rise began 150 years before the increase in C0 2 . 

Contrary to the predictions of the IPCC and other noted experts, 
numerous studies have reported that the sea level is not rising faster. Many 
others have documented a slower rise (Holgate 2007; Morner 2011; 
Houston 2011). What is undeniable is that IPCC has been compelled to 
reduce its sea-level predictions in each successive five-year Assessment 
Report (Fig. 11-49). 


Figure 11-48: More than 200 Years of sea-level rise 

(Source data: Jevrejeva 2008) 

Figure ll-49:Sea-level rise predictions are failing. 

Holgate (2007) reviewed nine long-term records (1904 - 2003) 


worldwide, and found that the rate of sea-level rise decreased from 1950 
onward (Fig. 11-50). 

Figure 11-50:Global average sea level from nine records shows decreasing rate 
of sea-level rise. 

A landmark study of Australian sea-level rise in 2011 (Figure 11-51) 
reported that the data “reveals (sic) a consistent trend of weak deceleration 
at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 
1940 to 2000.” So, contrary to frightening predictions of a rising rate of 
increase, we find just the opposite may be occurring. 

Further confirmation of a possible deceleration of sea-level rise was a 
study of 83 tide gauges by Houston and Dean (2011). Their conclusions 
were extremely inconvenient for those predicting the inundation of Miami: 

Onr analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide 
gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period 
we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent 
with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. 


Figure 11-51 :Sea-level rise at Australian tide gauges is slowing. 










0 ) 



1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 


Adapted from (Watson 2011). Reproduced with permission of CERF 

One of the most common climate myths is that the melting of the 
northern polar ice cap will not only lead to the extinction of polar bears, 
but cause significant sea-level rise. Actually, the entire north polar ice cap 
could melt and the change in the global sea level would be virtually zero. 
That is because the ice cap is frozen seawater, floating in the Arctic Ocean. 
As the ice melts, water displaces the void left by the formerly frozen H 2 0, 
most of which is submerged. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, seven- 
eighths of an iceberg is beneath the ocean surface. (Think of the Titanic, 
and see Figure 11-52). 

Inconvenient Fact 59 

Melting the northern polar ice cap would not increase the sea level. 

Sea-level change is driven mainly by the melting or accumulation of 
ice in land-based mountain or continental glaciers. The bulk of the water 
created by the melting of this type of glacier or ice sheet will eventually 
find its way to the oceans and cause the level of the sea to rise to some 
degree. During ice ages, large amounts of water were locked up in the 
glaciers covering primarily the northern latitudes of North America, 
Europe and Asia, lowering the level significantly. 


Figure 11-52: A sea-level test 

The important fact that if floating ice melts it does not raise the level of the sea 
can be tested by putting some ice cubes in a glass and filling it to a marked 
level with water. 

Even after the ice melts, the water level is unchanged. 

Antarctica today has nine-tenths of the world’s land-based ice mass. 
(Greenland has much of the rest.) Paradoxically, Antarctica is also the 
Earth’s driest continent. Water vapor across the continent is often near 
zero, and very little snow actually falls. The little that does precipitate 
stays there, and for a very long time, having built up over hundreds of 
thousands of years to a thickness of more than ten thousand feet in some 

So the world’s driest continent has the greatest potential to drive sea- 
level rise. 

Well-publicized reports of melting ice shelves surrounding the 
Antarctic Peninsula have been driving an untrue narrative of a melting 
Antarctica. The ice shelves are, like the northern ice cap, afloat. Complete 
melting of these would have no effect on the sea level. The media-driven 
hype on this subject climaxed after a portion of the Larsen C Ice Shelf 
broke away in Mid-July, 2017 and Antarctica became the poster child of 
alarm about warmer weather. 

The Larsen C crack is only a symptom of a larger problem. Taken 

together, recent findings show troubling changes are happening 


almost everywhere across Antarctica’s massive icy expanse. 

— Brian Kahn, Climate Central, 
May 2017 

With 10 per cent of the world’s population, or 700 million people, 
living less than 10 metres above present sea level, an additional 
three metres of sea level rise from the Antarctic alone will have a 
profound impact on us all. 

— Dr. Nick Golledge, senior 
research fellow, Antarctic 
Research Centre, Victoria. 

Why the focus specifically on the Antarctic Peninsula? Alarmists do 
this because it appears to be the only area of the continent that is warming. 
Numerous studies have reported cooling across the bulk of the Antarctic 
continent, with the lone outlier being the Antarctic Peninsula (Comiso 
2000, Doran 2002). The Peninsula, however, represents only about 2% of 
the Antarctic land mass (Figure 11-53). 


Figure Il-53:The Antarctic 

This Landsat image mosaic of Antarctica (by permission of NASA, 2017) shows 
the Antarctic Peninsula at upper left. The peninsula represents little more than 
2% of the land mass of the world’s driest continent. 

Inconvenient Fact 60 

Most of Antarctica is cooling and gaining ice mass. 

The cooling of the majority of the continent has increased, rather than 
decreased, the area of sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent (Fig. II- 
54). The cooling and consequent ice growth is not what the climate 
modelers had predicted. 

IPCC’s latest high-end projection (IPCC 2013), while much lower than 
their previous prognostications, is that the sea level may rise at almost half 
an inch per year, or more than 3 feet (11 m) by 2100. This is nearly 6 times 
our currently very steady rate of 0.07 inches/year (1.8 mm). Once again, 
those advancing a vision of climate apocalypse rely on questionable 
models, instead of looking at the data to see what is actually happening. 


Figure 11-54: Increasing Antarctic sea-ice area 

(Illinois University, 2017) 

Sea-level rise, which began long before widespread use of fossil fuels, 
will continue until the next ice age. And may God help us when that day 
arrives. Cold is a killer, where heat, on the whole, is not. 

Legislation enacted to halt the rise of the seas would be no more 
effective today than it was almost a mille nni um ago, when King Canute 
demonstrated the limits of government power to his courtiers by having his 
throne set up by the seashore and commanding the sea not to rise. The tide 
came in as usual. 

King Canute at the shore 


In 2008, upon receiving the nomination for president, Barack Obama 
stated that we could tell future generations, “This was the moment when 
the rise of the oceans began to slow.” Well, he may have been correct, but 
certainly not because, Canute-like, he had stretched forth his trembling 
hand over the ocean and commanded the sea not to rise. 


Summary — The Benefits of Principled 

The inconvenient facts in this book support quite a different narrative from 
that offered by proponents of apocalyptic human-driven climate change. 
On every key topic examined, the evidence, supported by voluminous peer 
reviewed studies, reveals that the “consensus” opinion promoted by 
climate-apocalypse proponents is consistently at odds with reality. In 
chapter after chapter, we learned that scientifically supported truths, as 
revealed within “Inconvenient Facts, ” are polar opposites of what we hear 
from climate alarmists and their willing accomplices in the media. 

Rather than a world quickly diving into a man-made climate hell from 
which we cannot return, the Earth, its ecosystems, and we humans are, 
instead, thriving. We are thriving because of increasing C0 2 and rising 
temperatures not in spite of it. 

By every metric reviewed, we have seen that the current changing 
climate has led to increasing food production, soil moisture, crop growth 
and a “greening” of the Earth. All the while droughts, forest fires, heat 
waves and temperature-related deaths have declined substantially. Only the 
radical worldview of the environmental extremist could ignore benefits 
clearly being accrued from atmospheric changes while embracing harmful 
economic policies based on failed climate models. 

Yes, there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Yes, there has been 
some warming. Yes, some of the warming is likely man-made. Yes, some 
further man-made warming is to be expected. On all these matters, few 
would disagree, for they are all demonstrable. 

But no, past and future anthropogenic warming does not mean that 
catastrophe will follow, or that measures to prevent global warming are 
scientifically and economically justified, or that capitalism should be 
blamed for the supposed “crisis”—still less that it should be destroyed 
because of spurious science. 

From the Inconvenient Facts we have reviewed, the first and most 
important conclusion is that the correct policy to address the non-problem 
of man-made global warming is to have the courage to do nothing. In this 

f 41 

case, it takes courage to do nothing. Imagine the enormous pressure on 
President Trump to keep the United States in the Paris climate accord. 
Worldwide indignation and scorn were heaped on him after his decision to 
withdraw from the agreement, yet it was the correct and courageous one to 
make. For leaders supporting the Paris agreement, the specter of 
catastrophic warming provides the moral justification for ever-higher 
taxation, ever-tighter regulation, ever-greater state interference and ever- 
diminished private freedom. 

Thanks to near-total control of the news media by proponents of a 
pending Thermageddon, critical truths are poorly understood and even 
derided: the truth that there is no “consensus”, the truth that “consensus” 
would not matter even if it existed, the truth that global warming will be 
small and largely beneficial, the truth that preventing it would be orders of 
magnitude costlier than adapting to it, the truth that the correct policy is to 
have the courage to do nothing. 

Yet, like it or not, the truth is the truth. Policy should, in the end, be 
based on objective truth and not on the back of a lavishly-funded and 
elaborate international campaign of crafty—and profitable for some— 
falsehoods promoted by the political, financial, corporate, bureaucratic and 
media establishments. 

Too many scientists have failed to uphold the integrity of their 
profession, whether because of willful self-promotion, desperate self- 
preservation, ignorance, greed, or fear of ridicule by the high priests of 
climate orthodoxy. They have shirked their duty to resist the campaign of 
lies and libels perpetrated by a small but influential number of their 
colleagues. It will take science many decades to overcome the damage 
wrought by this corruption of the scientific community. 

If this book can help alert the establishment to the Inconvenient Facts 
that A1 Gore and his ilk have found it expedient and profitable to ignore or 
to deny, then perhaps steps can be taken towards the urgent restoration of 
the primacy of truth in science—and in society. 


List of Inconvenient Facts 

Inconvenient Fact 1 

Carbon dioxide is not the primary greenhouse gas. 

Inconvenient Fact 2 

The warming effect of C0 2 declines as its concentration increases. 

Inconvenient Fact 3 

First and foremost, C0 2 is plant food. 

Inconvenient Fact 4 

In last four ice ages, the C0 2 level was dangerously low. 
Inconvenient Fact 5 

140-million-year trend of dangerously decreasing C0 2 
Inconvenient Fact 6 

Our current geologic period (Quaternary) has the lowest average 
C0 2 levels in the history of the Earth. 

Inconvenient Fact 7 

More C0 2 means more plant growth. 

Inconvenient Fact 8 

More C0 2 helps to feed more people worldwide. 

Inconvenient Fact 9 

More C0 2 means moister soil. 

Inconvenient Fact 10 

Recent Inconvenient Pause of 18 years in warming, despite rise in 
C0 2 


Inconvenient Fact 11 

C0 2 rose after the Second World War, but temperature fell. 

REALLY Inconvenient Fact 12 

Modern warming began long before SUVs or coal-fired plants. 

Inconvenient Fact 13 

Melting glaciers and rising seas confirm warming predated 
increases of C0 2 . 

Inconvenient Fact 14 

Temperatures have changed for 800,000 years. It wasn’t us. 

Inconvenient Fact 15 

Interglacials usually last 10,000-15,000 years. Ours is 11,000 years 

Inconvenient Fact 16 

Each of the four previous inter-glacial warming periods were 
significantly warmer than our current temperature. 

Inconvenient Fact 17 

The last interglacial, -120,000 years ago, was 8°C (14.4°F) warmer 
than today. The polar bears survived. Greenland didn’t melt. 

Inconvenient Fact 18 

Temperatures changed during the past 10,000 years. It wasn’t us. 

Inconvenient Fact 19 

Today’s total warming and warming rate are similar to earlier 

Inconvenient Fact 20 

It was warmer than today for 6,100 of the last 10,000 years. 

Inconvenient Fact 21 


Our current trend is neither unusual nor unprecedented. 

Inconvenient Fact 22 

Earth’s orbit and tilt drive glacial-interglacial changes. 

Inconvenient Fact 23 

We are living in one of the coldest periods in all of Earth’s history. 

Inconvenient Fact 24 

Earth has not had a geologic period this cold in 250 million years. 

Inconvenient Fact 25 

The only thing constant about temperatures over 600 million years 
is that they have been constantly changing. 

(this is a recurring Inconvenient Fact) 

Inconvenient Fact 26 

For most of Earth’s history, it was about 10 °C (18 °F) warmer than 

Inconvenient Fact 27 

IPCC models overstate future warming up to three times too much. 

Inconvenient Fact 28 

For human advancement, warmer is better than colder. 

Inconvenient Fact 29 

A return to the temperature at the beginning of the Industrial 
Revolution would lead to famine and death. 

Inconvenient Fact 30 

Only 0.3% of published scientists stated in their papers that recent 
warming was mostly man-made. 

Inconvenient Fact 31 

Science is not consensus and consensus is not science. 


Inconvenient Fact 32 

More C0 2 => fewer droughts 

Inconvenient Fact 33 

Higher temperature => fewer droughts 

Inconvenient Fact 34 

Forest fires across the northern hemisphere are decreasing. 

Inconvenient Fact 35 

More C0 2 » C0 2 fertilization » more soil moisture » faster tree 
growth » fewer forest fires 

Inconvenient Fact 36 

More C0 2 in the atmosphere means more food for everyone. 

Inconvenient Fact 37 

The Earth is becoming greener, not turning into desert. 

Inconvenient Fact 38 

Growing seasons are lengthening. 

Inconvenient Fact 39 

More C0 2 and warmer weather mean more world food production. 

Inconvenient Fact 40 

EPA: Heat waves are not becoming more frequent. 

Inconvenient Fact 41 

Extreme heat events are declining. 

Inconvenient Fact 42 

Cold kills far more people every year than heat. 

Inconvenient Fact 43 

Warmer weather means many fewer temperature-related deaths. 


Inconvenient Fact 44 

Warmer weather prevents millions of premature deaths each year. 

Inconvenient Fact 45 

More C0 2 and warmth mean shorter, less intense heat waves. 

Inconvenient Fact 46 

Number of tornadoes is declining. 

Inconvenient Fact 47 

The number of tornadoes in 2016 was the lowest on record. 

Inconvenient Fact 48 

Deaths from tornadoes are falling. 

Inconvenient Fact 49 

There has been no increase in frequency of hurricanes in recent 

Inconvenient Fact 50 

We have seen 250 years of declining hurricane frequency. 

Inconvenient Fact 51 

No significant increase in hurricane intensity due to warming 

Inconvenient Fact 52 

The population of polar bears is growing. 

Inconvenient Fact 53 

There are more polar bears than we’ve had for 50 years. 

Inconvenient Fact 54 

Polar bears are thriving even where sea ice is diminishing. 

Inconvenient Fact 55 

There is no historic correlation between C0 2 and oceanic pH. 


Inconvenient Fact 56 

The oceans did not become acidic even at 15 times modern C0 2 

Inconvenient Fact 57 

Sea-level increase began >15,000 years ago. 

Inconvenient Fact 58 

Recent sea-level rise began 150 years before the increase in C0 2 . 

Inconvenient Fact 59 

Melting the northern polar ice cap would not increase sea level. 

Inconvenient Fact 60 

Most of Antarctica is cooling and gaining ice mass. 



Alley RB (2004) GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data. 
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data 
Contribution Series #2004-013. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology 
Program, Boulder CO, USA. 

Atkins G (2011) What happened to the climate refugees? Asian 

Barnola JM, Raynaud D, Lorius C et al (2003) Historical C0 2 record from 
the Vostok ice core. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global 
Change. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of 
Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 

http ://cdiac icecore. co2 

Bastasch M (2017) So-called ’97%’ global warming ‘consensus’ number is 
a hoax: real number is 32.6%. Daily Caller News Foundation 

Behringer W (2007) A Cultural History of Climate. Polity Press translation 
2010, Malden MA 

Berner RA, Kothavala Z (2001) GEOCARB III: A revised model of 
atmospheric C0 2 over Phanerozoic time, IGBP PAGES and World 
Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Data Contribution Series # 
2002-051. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, 

Blake ES, Landsea CW, Gibney EJ (2011) The deadliest, costliest, and 
most intense united states tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2010 (and 
other frequently requested hurricane facts) NOAA National 
Weather Service, National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida 


Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2013) Global, regional and national 
fossil-fuel C0 2 emissions. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory, U.S. Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 
doi: 10.33 34/CDIAC/00001_V 2013 

Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ (2016) Global C0 2 emissions from 
Fossil-Fuel Burning Cement Manufacture and Gas Flaring 1751 - 
2013. CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Dept of 
Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, DOI 
10.3 3 34/CDI AC/00001 V2010 

Boden T, Andres B (2017) Ranking of the world’s countries by 2014 total 
C0 2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and 
gas flaring. Emissions (C0 2 _TOT) are expressed in thousand 
metric tons of carbon (not C0 2 ), Carbon Dioxide Information 
Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Bornay E (2007) Atlas environnement 2007 du Monde diplomatique, Paris 

Box JE, Yang L, Bromwich DH, Bai L (2009) Greenland Ice Sheet 
Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840 - 2007*. American 
Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate Vol 22, pp 4029^049 

Browman HI (2016) Applying organized scepticism to ocean acidification 
research, ICES Journal of Marine Science 73 (3): 529-536 

Brown T (2011) The long, slow thaw. Climate etc. website https://judith- 
curry. com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/ 

Calder N (1975) In the Grip of a New Ice Age. International Wildlife, July 

Carter R (2011) Climate: The Counter Consensus, Stacey International, 
London England 

CDIAC (2016) Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations. Carbon Dioxide 
Information Analysis Center 

http: //cdiac. oml. go v/pns/current_ghg. html 

Christy J (2015) That stubborn climate. University of Alabama at 



Christy J, U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology 2 Feb 
2016, Testimony of John R. Christy University of Alabama in 

Ciscar, J, Watkiss P, Hunt A, Pye S, Horrocks L (2009) Climate change 
impacts in Europe, Final report of the PESETA research project, 
JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, European Commission Joint 
Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies 

Comiso JC (2000) Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures 
from in situ and satellite infrared measurements. J Clim 13:1674- 

Cook ER, Seager R, Cane MA (2007) North American drought: 
reconstructions, causes, and consequences. Earth-Sci Rev 
81(1):93—134, doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2006.12.002 

Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green SA et al (2013) Quantifying the consensus on 
anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ 
Res Lett 8(2):024024 

Crockford SJ (2015) Polar bear population estimates, 1960 - 2017. 

Dahl-Jensen D, et al, (2013) Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a 
Greenland folded ice core. Nature, 493, p 489^194 

de Jong R, de Bruin S, de Wit A et al (2011) Analysis of monotonic 
greening and browning trends from global normalized-difference 
vegetation index time series, Remote Sens Env 115:692-702, 

de Jong R, Schaepman ME, Furrer R et al (2013) Spatial relationship 
between climatologies and changes in global vegetation activity. 
Glob Change Biol 19:1953 - 1964, doi: 10.1111/gcb. 12193 


De Saussure N (1804) Chemical research on plant matter 

Davis RE, Knappenberger PC, Michaels PJ, Novicoff WM (2003) 
Changing heat-related mortality in the United States. 
Environmental Health Perspectives, 111, 1712-1718. 

Dore JE, Lukas R, Sadler DW, Church MJ, Karl DM (2009) Physical and 
biogeo-chemical modulation of ocean acidification in the central 
North Pacific. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 
Vol 106, No 30 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906044106 

Doran PT, Priscu JC, Lyons WB et al (2002) Antarctic climate cooling and 
terrestrial ecosystem response. Nature, doi: 10.1038/nature710 

Doswell CA, Moller AR, Brooks HE (1999) Storm spotting and public 
awareness since the first tornado forecasts of 1948. Weather & 
Forecasting 14(4): 544-557 

Driessen P (2014) Miracle molecule — carbon dioxide, gas of life. 
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Washington DC 

Durner GM, Douglas DC, Albeke SE, Whiteman JP, Amstrup SC, 
Richardson E, Wilson RR, Ben-David M (2017) Increased Arctic 
sea ice drift alters adult female polar bear movements and 
energetics. Glob Change Biol. 2017; 00:1-14. 

https://doi.Org/10.l 111/gcb. 13746 

Earle S (2017) Physical Geology by Steven Earle used under a CC-BY 4.0 
international license. Chapter 16.1 Glacial Periods in Earth’s 
History. In Geology/BC Open Textbook Project, 6-1 -glacial-periods-in- 

EPA (2016a) Palmer United States drought-severity index data. 
drought, accessed 2017 May 2 

EPA (2016b) U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index 1895 - 2015, 


Fagan B (2000) The Little Ice Age—How Climate Made History 1300 - 
1850, Basic Books, NY, NY 

Fall S, Watts A, Nielsen Gammon J, Jones E, Niyogi D, Christy JR, Pielke 
RA Sr (2011) Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the 
US Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature 
trends, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D14120, doi: 10.1029/2010JD015146 

Feely RA, Doney SC, and Cooley SR (2009) Ocean acidification: Present 
conditions and future changes in a high-C0 2 world. Oceanography 
22: 36^47. 

Feely RA, Sabine CL, and Fabry VJ (2006) CARBON DIOXIDE AND 
OUR OCEAN LEGACY, NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental 

Fischer EM, Seneviratne SI, Liithi D, et al (2007a) Contribution of land- 
atmosphere coupling to recent European summer heatwaves. 
Geophys Res Lett 34 

Fischer EM, Seneviratne, Vidale PL et al (2007b) Soil moisture- 
atmosphere interactions during the 2003 European summer 
heatwave, J Clim 30(12) 

Flannigan MD, Bereron Y, Engelmark O, Wotton BM (1998) Future 
wildfire in circum-boreal forest in relation to global warming, 
Journal of Vegetation Science 9, pp 469^176 

Gasparrini A, Guo Y, Hashizume M, Lavigne E, Zanobetti A, Schwartz J, 
Tobias A, Tong S, Rocklov J, Forsberg B, Leone M, De Sario M, 
Bell ML, Guo Y, Wu C, Kan H, Yi S, de Sousa M, Stagliorio Z, 
Hilario P, Saldiva N, Honda Y, Kim H, Armstrong B (2015) 
Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a 
multicountry observational study, The Lancet, Vol 386 July 25, 

Goklany IM (2009) Deaths and death rates from extreme weather events, 
1900 - 2008. J Am Phys Surg 14(4): 102-109 


Gosselin AP (2013) Atmospheric C0 2 concentrations at 400 ppm are still 
dangerously low for life on Earth, 
earth/#sthash. qUY eT cPh. dpuf 

Grinsted A, Moore JC, Jevrejeva S (2009), Reconstructing sea level from 
paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100AD. Clim. Dyn. 

Grove JM (2001) The Initiation of the Little Ice Age in Regions around the 
North Atlantic. Climatic Change 48 pp 53-82 

HadCRUT4 (2017) The Hadley Climate Research Unit (HadCRUT4) 
annual global mean surface temperature dataset, 
http ://www. metoffice. s/had- 
crut4/data/ current/do wnload. html 

Halevy I, Bachan A (2017) The geologic history of seawater pH. Science 
355, 1069-1071 (2017) 10 March 2017 

Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N et al (2014) Global integrated drought 
monitoring and prediction system. Sci Data 1, 


Holgate SJ (2007) On the decadal rates of sea level change during the 
twentieth century. Geophys Res Lett 34:L01602, doi: 


Holland G, and Webster P (2007) Heightened tropical cyclone activity in 
the North Atlantic: natural variability or climate trend? Phil Trans 
R Soc A doi: 10.1098/rsta.2007.2083 

Hoskins E (2014) The diminishing influence of increasing carbon dioxide 
on temperature. 

Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, 
Maskell K, and IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Contribution 
of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, 
Switzerland, p 115IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The 
Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Houston JR, Dean RG (2011) Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide 
gauges and extensions of previous global gauge analyses. J Coast 
Res 27(3): 409-417 

Idso CD (2013) The positive externalities of carbon dioxide.] 

Idso CD, Idso SB, Carter RM et al [Eds] (2014) Climate change 
reconsidered II: biological impacts. Heartland Institute, Chicago, 

Illinois, University of (2017) Cryosphere Today southern hemisphere sea- 
ice anomaly, 1979 - 2017., 
accessed April 2017, 

IPCC 1990 Climate Change The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Houghton, 
JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ. Cambridge University Press, New 
York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney, 365pp 

IPCC (2001): Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of 
Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T.,Y. 
Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. 
Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp. 

IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report 
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon S, 
Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Avery KB, Tignor M, 
Miller HL (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. 

IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. 


Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker TF, Qin 
D, Plattner GK et al (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge, United Kingdom & New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp. 

Japan Meteorological Agency, Acidification in the Pacific, Otemachi, 
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8122, Japan 

Jefferson T (1801) Notes on the State of Virginia. 

Jevrejeva S, Moore JC, Grinsted A, Woodworth PL (2008) Recent global 
sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? Geophys. Res. 
Lett, 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611 

Jordan WC (1996) The Great Famine, Princeton, Princeton University 
Press, 20 

Jouzel J, et al. (2007a) EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800K Yr Deuterium Data 
and Temperature Estimates. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for 
Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2007-091. 

NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA. 

Jouzel J et al. (2007b) Orbital and Millennial Antarctic Climate Variability 
over the Past 800,000 Years. Science, Vol. 317, No. 5839, pp.793- 
797, 10 August 2007. 

Kalkstein LS, Greene S, Mills, DM, Samenow J (2011) An evaluation of 
the progress in reducing heat-related human mortality in major U.S. 
cities. Natural Hazards, 56, 113-129. 

Kang N, & Eisner JB (2015) Trade-off between intensity and frequency of 
global tropical cyclones, Nature Climate Change, Letters 

Keigwin LD (1996) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the 
Sargasso Sea Science 21 A, No. 5292, 1504-1508. 

ftp: //ftp .ncdc. 


Kossin JP, Knapp KR, Vimont DJ, Harper BA (2007) Geophysical 
Research Letters volume 34 pages L04815 DOI : 
10.1029/2006GL028836 http7/nca2 014. global- 

change . gov/search/node? 

Landsea C (2007) Counting Atlantic tropical cyclones back to 1900, EOS 
Volume 88, Issue 18, pp 197-202 

Landsea C (2011) Hurricanes and Global Warming. Opinion piece on 
NOAA website: 

http ://www. aoml.noaa. gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/ 

Le Quere C, Andres RJ, Boden T et al (2012) The global carbon budget 
1959-2011. Earth System Science Data Discussions 5(2): 1107— 
1157, doi: 10.5194/essdd-5-l 107-2012 

Legates DR, Soon W, Briggs WM (2013) Learning and Teaching Climate 
Science: The perils of consensus knowledge using agnotology. Sci 
Edu 22:2007-2017, doi: 10.1007/s 11191-013-9588-3 

Legates DR, Soon W, Briggs WM et al (2015) Climate consensus and 
‘misinformation’: a rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, scientific consensus, 
and the teaching and learning of climate change. Sci Edu 24:299- 
318, doi: 10.1007/s 11191-013-9647-9 

Lisiecki LE, Raymo ME (2005) A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 
globally distributed Benthic 5 18 records. Paleoceanography, vol. 20, 
pal003, doi: 10.1029/2004PA001071 

Liu Y, Liu W, Peng Z, Xiao Y, Wei G, Sun W, He J, Liu G, Chou C 
(2009) Instability of seawater pH in the South China Sea during the 
mid-late Holocene: Evidence from boron isotopic composition of 
corals, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 73 (2009) 1264-1272 

Loehle C, McCulloch JH (2008a) A 2000-Year Global Temperature 
Reconstruction Based On Non-Tree Ring Proxies. Energy & 
Environment, Vol 18, No 7&8 

Loehle C, McCulloch JH (2008b) Correction to: A 2000-Year Global 


Temperature Reconstruction Based On Non-Tree Ring Proxies. 
Energy & Environment, Vol 19, No 1 

Lomborg B (2016) Impact of current climate proposals. Glob Policy 
7:109-118. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12295 

Luthi D, Le Floch M, Bereiter B, Blunier T, Bamola JM, Siegenthaler U, 
Raynaud D, Jouzel J, Fischer H, Kawamura K, Stocker TF (2008) 
High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000 - 
800,000 years before present. Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 379-382, 15 
May 2008. doi:10.1038/nature06949 

Madhu M, Hatfield JL (2015) Elevated carbon dioxide and soil moisture 
on early growth response of soybean. Agric Sci 6(2) 

MAGICC - Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas - Induced 
Climate Change, 

Maibach E, Perkins D, Francis Z et al (2016) A 2016 national survey of 
American Meteorological Society member views on climate 
change: initial findings. Center for Climate Communication, 
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA 

Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK (1998) Global-scale temperature 
patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries NATURE 
Vol 392 

Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK (1999) Northern Hemisphere 
Temperatures during the Past Millenium: Inferences, Uncertainties, 
and Limitations. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp 

Mann ME, Jones PD (2003), Global surface temperatures over the past two 
millennia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1820, doi: 

10.1029/2003GL017814, 15. 

Marland G, Boden TA, Andres RJ (2008) Global, regional and national 
fossil fuel C0 2 emissions. In: Trends—a compendium of data on 
global change. CDIAC, Oak Ridge Nat Lab, U.S. Dept of Energy, 


Oak Ridge, TN, U.S.A. 

Maue R (2016) Atlantic Basin Power Dissipation Index from HURDAT2, 
after Michaels 

Maue R (2017) Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Weather Bell Models 

McAdie CJ, Landsea CW, Neumann CJ, David JE, and Blake ES (2009) 
Tropical Cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean, 1851 - 2006 
NOAA National Hurricane Center, National Climatic Data Center, 
Asheville, NC 

Melillo JM, Richmond TC, Yohe GW, Eds (2014) Climate Change 
Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 
Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. 

Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets, accessed March, 2017 

Michaels P, Balling RC, Hutzler MJ, Davis RE, Knappenberger PC, Idso 
CD (2012) Addendum: Global Climate Change Impacts in the 
United States, Center For The Study Of Science Cato Institute 

Michaels P., Knappenberger PC (2015) Lukewarming The new climate 
science that changes everything. CATO Institute, 1000 
Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001 

Moore TG (1996) Warmer is Richer, Hoover Institution Stanford 

Moore P (2016) The dangerous 150-million-year decline in C0 2 . Frontier 
Inst, Toronto, Canada. 

Morice CP, Kennedy JJ, Rayner NA, Jones PD (2012) Quantifying 
uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an 
ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 dataset, J. 
Geophysical. Res., 117, D08101, doi: 10.1029/2011JD017187. 


Morner N-A (2011) Setting the frames of expected future sea level 
changes by exploring past geological sea level records. Chapter 6 
of book, D Easterbrook, Evidence-Based Climate Science, 2011 
Elsevier B.V. ISBN: 978-0-12-385956-3 

Myers, N (2005) Environmental refugees, an emergent security issue’, 13. 
Economic forum, Prague, OSCE, May 2005, Millennium 
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 

Narisma GT, Foley JA, Licker R et al (2007) Abrupt changes in rainfall 
during the 20 th century. Geophys Res Lett 34(6), 
doi: 10.1029/2006GL028628 

National Integrated Drought Information System, US Drought Portal 
http s: //www. drought. gov/drought/ 

NIFC (2017) National Interagency Fire Center - Total Wildland Fires and 
Acres (1960 - 2015),, 
accessed 04/2017 

National Weather Service, snowfall history Pittsburgh, PA 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NWS NHC-6, USGCRP National Climate 
Assessment (2014) Adapted from Kossin et al (2007) 

NOAA (2016) NWS Storm Prediction Center. US Annual Trends of Local 
Storm Reports Tornadoes 

NOAA (2017a) U.S. percentage areas very wet/very dry., 
accessed 2017 May 2 

NOAA (2017a) National Center for Environment—US Tornado 
Climatology. Regions of the World with Increased Likelihood of 
Experiencing Tornadoes, 


NOAA (2017b) NOAA NCEI Historical Records and Trends, 

NOAA (2017c) NOAA National Weather Service Enhanced Fujita Scale, 
https ://www. weather, gov/oun/ tornadodata-okc-appendix 

NOAA PMEL (2017) Hawaii Carbon Dioxide Time-Series. 

https://www.pmel.noaa.go v/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Tim 

Noon (2016) What if Obama’s climate change policies are based on 
pHraud? CFact post 
phraud/#sthash.XQXdXj vE. dpuf 

Oerlemans J (2005) Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records. 
Science 29 Apr 2005: Vol. 308, Issue 5722, pp. 675-677 DOI: 
10.1126/science. 1107046 

Oregon Petition (2008) 

Oreskes, N (2004) The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 
306, 1686 

Overdieck D, Reid C, Strain BR (1988) The effects of pre-industrial and 
future C0 2 concentrations on growth, dry matter production and the 
carbon-nitrogen relationship in plants at low nutrient supply: Vigna 
unguiculata (Cowpea), Abelmoschus esculentus (Orka) and 
Raphinus sativus (Radish). Angewandte Botanik 62:119-134. 

Owen J, (2009) Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change? National 
Geographic News, July 2009 

Parker DE, Legg TP, Folland CK (1992) A new daily Central England 
Temperature Series, 1772 - 1991. Int. J. Clim., Vol 12, pp 317— 

Pelejero C, Calvo E, McCulloch MT, Marshall JF, Gagan MK, Lough JM, 
Opdyke BN (2005), Preindustrial to Modern Interdecadal 


Variability in Coral Reef pH, Science 309, 2204, 2005 

PSMSL (2008) Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. Recent global sea 
level acceleration started over 200 years ago? 

Rhode R (2017) Global Warming Art 

Robinson GD and Robinson GD (2012) Global Warming—Alarmists, 
Skeptics, and Deniers. Moonshine Publishing, Abbeville, SC 

Rode KD (2013) Spatial and temporal variation in polar bear responses to 
sea ice loss: Powerpoint presentation to Alaska Sea Grant 
Conference, College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences University of 
Alaska Fairbanks 

Rode KD, Regehr EV, Douglas D et al (2014) Variation in the response of 
an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and 
reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change 
Biology 20:76-88, doi: 10.1111/gcb. 12339 

Roj o-Garibaldi B, Salas-d-Leon DA, Sanchez NL, Monreal-Gomez MA 
(2016) Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea 
and their relationship with sunspots Journal of Atmospheric and 
Solar-Terrestrial Physics 148 • October 2016 DOI: 


Ross T and Lott N (2003) A Climatology of 1980 - 2003 Extreme Weather 
and Climate Events, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center 
Technical Report No. 2003-1 

Rutgers University Global Snow Lab 

Schott T, Landsea C, Hafele G, Lorens G, Taylor A, Thurm H, Ward B, 
Willis M, and Zaleski W (2012) Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind 
Scale, NOAA National Hurricane Center 

Schulte K-M (2008) Scientific consensus on climate change? Energy 
Environ 19(2). 

Scotese CR (2002) Analysis of the temperature oscillations in geological 


eras. Paleo-map Project 

Seaquist JW, Hickler T, Eklundh L, Ardo J, and Heumann, (2009) 
Disentangling the effects of climate and people on Sahel vegetation 
dynamics, Biogeo-sciences, 6, 469-477, doi: 10.5194/bg-6-469- 
2009, 2009. 

Segelastad T (2008) Carbon Isotope Mass Balance Modelling of 
Atmospheric vs. Oceanic C0 2 . 33rd International Geological 
Congress (Session TC), Oslo, Norway 6-14 August 2008 

Spencer R (2017) UAH Satellite-Based Temperature of the Global Lower 
Atmosphere (Version 6.0), 

Springmann M, Mason-D’Croz D, Robinson S, Garnett T, Godfray HC, 
Gollin D, Rayner M, Ballon P, Scarborough P (2016) Global and 
regional health effects of future food production under climate 
change: a modelling study. Lancet 2016, May 7, 387:1937^46, doi: 
10.1016/SO 140-6736(15)01156-3 

Stein M (2015) A Disgrace to the Profession. Stockade Books, 
Woodsville, NH 

Swann AL, Swann S, Hoffman FM et al (2016) Plant responses to 
increasing C0 2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought 
severity. PNAS113(36): 10019-10024 

Tans P, Keeling R, (2017) Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Earth 
System Research Laboratory (ESRL), Global Monitoring Division, 
N O AA https: //www. esrl. noaa. gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data. html 

Tol R (2015) Global warming consensus claim does not stand up. The 
Australian, (author’s cut) 

UAH Global Temperature Update (2017) National Space Science and 
Technology Center (NSSTC) The University of Alabama in 


http ://www. ns txt 

U. K. Office for National Statistics (2017) Excess winter mortality in 
England and Wales: 2015/16 (provisional) and 2014/15 (final) 

United Nations Environment Programme (2005) Environmental refugees, 
An emergent security issue, 13. Econom. Original map has been 
removed from website, archived document available here: 
https ://wattsupwiththat. files, wordpress .com/2011/04/un_5 Omillion_ 

UNFAO (2012) United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: World 
grain production 1961-2012. Food Outlook, May 2012, p. 1 

UNFAO (2017) United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: 
http ://www. fao. org/fao stat/en/#compare 

University of Missouri Corn Extension, accessed May 2017. 

USDA (2017) World Agricultural Outlook Board, World agricultural 
supply and demand estimates updated to February. 

US Global Change Research Program (2009) Global climate change 
impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, 

US National Weather Service (2017) The Atmosphere. NOAA 

USEIA (2017) Frequently asked questions: How much C0 2 is produced 
when different fuels are burned? US Energy Information 
Administration Accessed 5/20/17 at 

https ://www.eia. gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=7 3 &t= 11 

Vardoulakis S, Dear K, Hajat S, Heaviside C, Eggen B, McMichael AJ 
(2014) Comparative Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change 
on Heat- and Cold-Related Mortality in the United Kingdom and 
Australia, Environmental Health Perspectives, volume 122, number 


Waelbroeck C, Labeyrie L, Michel E, Duplessy JC, McManus J, Lambeck 
K, Balbon E, and Labracherie M (2002) Sea-level and deep water 
temperature changes derived from benthic foraminifera isotopic 
records. Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol. 21, pp. 295-305. 

Watson, P.J., 2011. Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea 
Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal 
Research, 27(2), 368-377. 

Will G (2009) The Truth About Global Warming. Newsweek 11/6/2009, 

Yang, J, Tian H, Tao B, Ren W, Kush J, Liu Y, and Wang Y (2014) 
Spatial and temporal patterns of global burned area in response to 
anthropogenic and environmental factors: Reconstructing global 
fire history for the 20th and early 21 st centuries, J Geophys Res 
Biogeosci, 119, 249 263, doi: 10.1002/2013JG002532. 

York J, Dowsley M, Cornwell A et al (2016) Demographic and traditional 
knowledge perspectives on the current status of Canadian polar 
bear subpopulations, Ecol Evol, 6:2897-2924,p 


Zachos J, Pagani M, Sloan L, Thomas E, Billups K (2001) Trends, 
Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present. 
Science 27 Apr 2001: Vol. 292, Issue 5517, pp. 686-693 DOI: 
10.1126/science. 1059412 

Zachos JC, Ro U, Schellenberg SA, Sluijs A, Hodell DA Kelly DC, 
Thomas E, Nicolo M, Raffi I, Lourens LJ, McCarren H, Kroon D 
(2005) Rapid Acidification of the Ocean During the Paleocene- 
Eocene Thermal Maximum, Science, Vol 308 pp 1611-1615 

Zhu Z, et al. (2016) Greening of the Earth and its drivers, Nature Climate 
Change 6, 791-795